Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Polling Stations (Accessibility)

Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to improve the accessibility of polling stations to people with disabilities. [19782]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): We issue advice and guidance to acting returning officers, who are most directly responsible for selecting polling places and polling stations, and provide grant aid towards the costs of purchasing temporary ramps and polling booths specially adapted to the needs of voters who are wheelchair users.

Mr. Gerrard: Does the Minister recall that a survey conducted at the time of the last general election revealed that 88 per cent. of polling stations had access problems? Does he accept that the vast majority of disabled people want to vote in person? Does he accept also that many of them will not be able to do so at this general election because simple improvements, such as ramps, better lighting or allowing people to vote at a more accessible location, have not been carried out because the Government failed to do what they could, and should, have done in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to ensure that accessibility is not an option, but a legal requirement?

Mr. Sackville: I am certainly aware of the Spastics Society report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We want to minimise the number of people who have to vote by proxy or by post because of disablement. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that, since the last general election, we have paid out £175,000 in grants to local authorities to try to help improve access to polling stations. Many of the buildings concerned are primary schools and libraries at which access arrangements are improving all the time.

Mr. Butler: Can my hon. Friend confirm that this is another case where the generosity of the Treasury is unlimited, and that the grants available are uncapped? Is he aware that, in common with many colleagues on this side of the House, I wrote to my returning officer some weeks ago asking him to ensure that arrangements for the disabled were in place before the general election?

Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend is taking a risk in revealing the fact that the budget is uncapped. It is true

that any requests for grants for those purposes are met, so long as they are eligible, and that any local authority may seek grant aid to improve access to polling stations.

Rev. Martin Smyth: We welcome that information. Do electoral returning officers act upon the guidance that they are given? We are all aware that polling day is a social occasion, and it is tragic if the disabled are prevented from voting when alternative accommodation may be available.

Mr. Sackville: I assure the House that we have repeatedly reminded electoral returning officers that people have a right to vote, and that the number of those who are unable to vote in person must be kept to an absolute minimum. I assure the hon. Gentleman that improvements are proceeding apace.

Prisons (Drugs)

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent of drug taking in prisons. [19783]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Provisional figures show that of more than 32,000 prisoners tested between April and October 1996 under the random drug testing programme, between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. tested positive. The vast majority were for cannabis. Further research is in hand to provide a more detailed picture.

Dr. Spink: Knowing how assiduously and effectively my right hon. Friend the Minister of State performs her duties, I ask whether she has found time to visit any prisons in the past few months in order to assess for herself the effectiveness of the work undertaken to cut off the supply of drugs to prisoners. Does she agree that we certainly need to do more work to continue to stop drugs reaching prisoners so that prisons may be austere but reforming institutions, rather than the playhouses that Opposition Members would make them?

Miss Widdecombe: Yes, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that I have now visited all the prisons in England and Wales. During those visits, I have on each and every occasion discussed the issue of drugs with prison governors. I am pleased to say that I have seen a number of good initiatives, including weekend mandatory drug testing, enhanced use of drug dogs and special initiatives in regard to monitoring visits. All those initiatives demonstrate the clear resolve of prison governors to get on top of the problem, which echoes the Government's own resolve. I fully concur with the sentiment of my hon. Friend—prisons under this Government are decent but austere; that is not what is proposed or has been the experience of prisons under Labour.

Mr. Alton: I congratulate the Minister on her assiduousness in visiting so many prisons—[HON. MEMBERS: "All of them."]—in visiting all prisons, but does she agree that the level of recidivism among prisoners who continue to be addicted to drugs when they leave prison remains a major factor in fuelling the link between criminality and the taking of drugs? Does she agree that it is a curse on generations of young people


that so many people ply drugs on street corners in cities such as Liverpool? Is that not a powerful incentive for crime? Does she further agree that nothing should be done to encourage the taking of drugs—particularly calls for their decriminalisation?

Miss Widdecombe: I have good news for the hon. Gentleman on the subject of recidivism. He will be pleased to know that the rate of reconviction for those leaving our prisons is now lower than the rate for those serving sentences in the community. That is a tremendous tribute to what our prisons are achieving in rehabilitating the prison population. He is right to say that there is a clear link between drugs and crime and it is imperative that while people are in prison, we should get them off drugs. This is why our efforts are concentrated not only on the supply of drugs and on stopping them getting into prison, but on offering an extensive range of treatment, counselling, therapy and education.

Mr. Rathbone: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement—and I remind her of the warmth of her welcome at Lewes prison some months ago—but will she remind and reassure the House that in all the prisons where drug testing takes place, sufficient treatment and counselling are in place so that those prisoners who want to come off drugs are given every encouragement to do so?

Miss Widdecombe: Drug testing now takes place in all our prisons, and has done since April 1996. My hon. Friend is right that it is essential to back up that testing by giving prisoners strategies and alternatives to using drugs and the ability to come off them.

Mr. George Howarth: Is the Minister aware that Home Office statistics reveal that the use of hard drugs in privatised prisons is 60 per cent. higher than in comparable prisons in the rest of the prison estate? Will she confirm that those private companies that operate private prisons have donated £2.6 million to Conservative party funds? Is it not the case that private prisons are soft on drugs and that this Government are soft on private prisons?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is totally at odds with a number of independent reports, including that of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, who praised Doncaster prison as a model for the rest of the service. He is at odds with Lord Longford, who said on leaving Blakenhurst that but for the fact he does not much like private prisons, he would like every prison to be run like Blakenhurst. He is at odds with the findings on the Wolds, which is now regarded as a model for the service. He does not understand the achievements of private prisons and is about 10 years behind the times. He is driven by Labour ideology and would do well to look at the increase in rehabilitation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) draws circles in the air. He is describing Labour's policy, which is a circle that goes round and round. The Labour party does not know what direction it is going in and it speaks with two tongues on privatisation. No wonder the hon. Gentleman draws circles in the air—Labour's policy is one big circle.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must send a clear message to people who deal in

drugs, whether they are in or out of prison: that we will have zero tolerance of drug dealing? Will she therefore guarantee that, when we are re-elected on 1 May, one of the first things that the Conservative Government will do is reverse the wrecking amendments that the Labour party tabled to the Crime (Sentences) Bill, so that people convicted for a third time of dealing in hard drugs will automatically get seven years in prison? Does not that demonstrate that the Labour party is soft on crime?

Miss Widdecombe: Yes. I give the House a categorical assurance that we will reverse those amendments when we are returned to power on 1 May. That will be one of the first things that we do, because we are committed to protecting the public; the Labour party is merely committed to making life easy for the criminal. My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he says that we should exhibit zero tolerance of drug dealing. That is why we want seven-year minimum mandatory sentences for people who are convicted for a third time. The Opposition take the issue of drugs so seriously that they appear to regard it as a cause for mirth. I do not think that they will regard it as a cause for mirth when they who have never won an election in 23 years find that they will not win the next one either.

Metropolitan Police

Ms Hodge: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police strength in the Metropolitan police in (a) 1996 and (b) 1992. [19784]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will permit me to say how pleased I am sure the whole House is to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) in his place on the Conservative Benches this afternoon.
In answer to the hon. Lady's question, between March 1992 and March 1996, a like-for-like comparison shows that about 800 extra uniformed constables were made available to Metropolitan police divisions for operational duties—an increase of 6 per cent. On average, uniformed divisional constables now spend some 10 per cent more time on patrol than in 1992.

Ms Hodge: In the dying moments of the Conservative Government, will the Home Secretary break his right to silence and confess that the figures that are in Hansard of 28 February—column 431—demonstrate that, year on year, police strength in the capital has gone down; confess that, this year, Londoners are paying more for their police service but are getting less; and confess that this is yet another in a long string of broken promises that Londoners have had to bear from a discredited Government?

Mr. Howard: I have given the hon. Lady the accurate figures and am astonished that she should prattle on in that way when she knows perfectly well that her party's shadow Chancellor has said that not a penny more will be committed to the Metropolitan police. There will be no more money for the police, according to the shadow Chancellor, so the hon. Lady's question is absolutely inexplicable. I should have


thought that she would have wanted instead to draw attention to the fact that, in the Dagenham division, which corresponds to her constituency, since 1992, notifiable offences have fallen by 10 per cent., recorded residential burglaries by nearly 30 per cent., recorded sexual offences by nearly 30 per cent., theft of motor vehicles by nearly 25 per cent.; that the clear-up rate for total notifiable offences has risen from 15 per cent. to 22 per cent., for robbery from 12 per cent. to more than 22 per cent. and for domestic burglary from 11.5 per cent. to 29 per cent. That is good news for the hon. Lady's constituents.

Mr. Jessel: While all sensible people accept that to save lives extra police are needed in central London to combat terrorism and drug trafficking, which may mean slightly fewer police officers in outer London, I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that people in outer London remain very concerned about crime and hope that at some time in future, and before very long, additional police officers can be found for outer London.

Mr. Howard: I well understand my hon. Friend's concerns on behalf of his constituents. I know how energetic he has been in drawing them to my attention and that of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis who I know will want to do everything he can to respond to my hon. Friend's concerns in the future.

Children (Criminal Activities)

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to take action to discourage children from taking part in criminal activities; and if he will make a statement. [19785]

Mr. Howard: The Government believe that it is important to identify as early as possible children who may be at risk of offending and to take action to help them stay clear of crime. We have just published a Green Paper, "Preventing Children Offending", which sets out proposals for action to help children before they become offenders and reinforces parents' responsibility for their children's behaviour.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is totally in the interests of society, and children in particular, that they should be taught the difference between right and wrong from an early age, and that therefore Christian or moral education in schools is absolutely crucial, although it is seriously neglected by Labour-controlled authorities right across the land? Is not it totally wrong for vicars, or clergymen of any kind, not to mention the Leader of the Opposition, to condone shoplifting, for example?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The remarks to which he has referred, both by the clergyman concerned and the Leader of the Opposition, were quite disgraceful. The Leader of the Opposition sought to excuse certain kinds of pickpocketing and shoplifting in a most disgraceful remark in a speech that he made a short while ago. We all have a duty to inculcate a sense of right and wrong in our children, and it is particularly regrettable when those in positions of authority fail to contribute to that objective.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Home Secretary explain to the House why it has taken 18 years for the Government

to produce a Green Paper on dealing with youth crime, and why he did not even act upon the recommendation of his own Home Office research study 161 which revealed some months ago that even a relatively expensive early intervention against youth crime can save an awful lot of money later because young offenders' institutions are so expensive and ineffective?

Mr. Howard: A great deal has been done during the past 18 years to deal with youth crime in various ways. The Green Paper draws together best practice to try to encourage that best practice across the country and to make new proposals for parental control orders which will encourage parents to exert greater control over their offspring.

Mr. Tredinnick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that crime among youngsters is one of the main worries of the Burbage safe neighbourhood action group in my constituency? How will the child crime teams envisaged in his Green Paper work when the Government are re-elected after 1 May?

Mr. Howard: I hope that child crime teams will be able to bring all the relevant agencies and voluntary bodies, including, for example, Home Start, to bear on those children who experience difficulties and are likely to become career criminals. I hope that everything that can be done will be done to turn them away from a career of crime, and at an early stage. That will be the objective of the child crime teams.

Mr. Straw: I endorse the Home Secretary's welcome to the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). We are pleased to see him back.
Does the Home Secretary recognise that nowhere has the Government's failure during the past 18 years been greater than in respect of the youth justice system, with an increase in just the past 10 years of 35 per cent. in the number of youth crimes but a drop of an equivalent amount—35 per cent.—in the number of young criminals being brought to court? Is the Home Secretary particularly aware of the large number of 10 to 13-year-olds who are not taught the difference between right and wrong under the current system and who presently escape any punishment at all for those serious offences? In view of that, why have the Government failed so far to bring forward any proposals to reform the law on doli incapax?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman totally misrepresents the current position. It is perfectly possible for 10 to 13-year-olds to be brought to court, to be accused of their crime and to be convicted if it can be shown, as it usually can in those circumstances, that they knew the difference between right and wrong. The Crown Prosecution Service says that there is no evidence of a real problem arising out of the rule to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Government are keeping the operation of that rule under review. If there is any evidence that it is causing a problem, we will act to deal with it.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that more than 85 per cent. of young people who get into trouble do not reoffend because of the measures taken by the police and the courts? The number


before the courts has reduced, because of the effect of cautioning. Is not the real problem the 15 per cent. who are not deterred from crime by a caution or by getting into trouble once? That is where the growth in juvenile crime lies, and where tough measures are needed. It is no use the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) nodding his head. We need the secure training units that his party refused to support.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I know that he will be particularly pleased to learn that the first contract for a secure training unit was signed on 3 March this year. We can now implement that policy, which, as my hon. Friend rightly said, was opposed root and branch by the Opposition parties. The unit will provide secure accommodation to deal with persistent young offenders in the way that is most appropriate.

Jury Trials

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning his proposals to restrict the right to jury trial. [19786]

Mr. Howard: Giving magistrates the right to decide where either-way cases should be tried was one of 33 recommendations in the report of the review of delay in the criminal justice system, which was published on 27 February and is now out for consultation. At this early stage in the consultation period, I have received very few responses.

Mr. Livingstone: Has the Home Secretary had time to consider the views of his former colleague, Alan Clark, who wrote in the News of the World dismissing those proposals as a last minute idea? He pointed out that the jury trial is the last line of defence for the ordinary citizen.

Mr. Howard: I always listen very carefully to what Mr. Clark says, because he is perhaps my most distinguished constituent. It is incumbent on me to take his views on all matters extremely seriously. I agree with him on almost everything, but not on that.

Mr. Ashby: This is definitely my last question in the House. My right hon. and learned Friend knows of my opposition and the opposition of many lawyers to restricting the right to jury trial. In his White Paper, he gave as the grounds for such a change the fact that there is too much delay and that that delay must be addressed. Has he considered that such a measure would reduce the delay in the Crown court and increase the delay in the magistrates court? That is what will happen, so there will still be delays in the system.

Mr. Howard: I do not accept my hon. Friend's point. The extraordinary truth is that two thirds of those who elect to go for trial in the Crown court then plead guilty, so they do not avail themselves of the option that they have elected to take. We think that it would speed up justice considerably in the Crown court and the magistrates court if the proposals were accepted. We think that they have merit. We want to listen to what people say about them, and we shall announce our decisions in due course.

Special Constables

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in attracting new recruits for the position of special constable. [19787]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Between 1991 and 1995, the special constabulary increased from 15,000 to 20,000. A total of £10 million of central Government grant has been made available to help police forces to improve their training, equipment and recruitment of special constables.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister knows that the Opposition believe that special constables play a special part in bringing law and order to our streets. We want the number of special constables to be increased. In 1992, the Government promised to recruit more special constables. In the past year, they have thrown £4 million at advertising, but have ended up with fewer special constables than they started with.
Instead of paying for glitzy advertising, is it not time that we put money into people's pockets to give them a reasonable return for being a special constable and working for their community? A better recruitment drive would be to spend less on advertising and to put a bit of money in a special constable's pocket.

Mr. Maclean: That shows that the hon. Gentleman is not in touch with the special constabulary, whose cause he claims to espouse. Every time we ask special constables whether they want any form of payment, reward or bounty for what they do, the answer is an almost unanimous no. That view was expressed when we carried out an exercise to boost all aspects of the training and recruitment of special constables last year.
Expenditure on the regular police force is now a record £7.3 billion. The amounts that we have spent on recruiting officers for the specials are modest in comparison. If we had not spent that money, the strength of the special constabulary would have dropped, which is not what we want. Through our advertising campaign, we have managed to maintain numbers in the specials—although 13 per cent. join the regular force each year, which is also good news.

Mrs. Peacock: Can my right hon. Friend say how much is now available for the recruitment and training of special constables throughout the United Kingdom, and how much has recently been allocated to West Yorkshire?

Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to say that we have recently made available £10 million specifically to aid recruitment of special constables, and to improve training and equipment. We recognise that those who volunteer for the special constabulary are making one of the greatest potential sacrifices that any volunteer can make in this country. It is a noble calling. The money that we have allocated is improving the special constabulary, and all forces are grateful for it.
West Yorkshire received nearly £130,000 last year, and last week I was pleased to be able to allocate a further £127,000 to it. That will build on the considerable success that West Yorkshire has had with its specials—along with


the increased number of regulars that it has had since 1979—and on its success over the past few years in lowering the level of all kinds of crime in the area, including violent crime.

Closed-circuit Television

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of CCTV in Newcastle as operated by Northumbria police. [19788]

Mr. Sackville: I understand from the Northumbria police that recorded crime in Newcastle city centre has more than halved since the introduction of closed-circuit television in 1992. There were 15,000 incidents in 1991, and fewer than 7,000 in 1996. The neighbourhood CCTV system in the west end of Newcastle also produced a 23 per cent. reduction of crime in 1996.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister recognise that neighbourhood CCTV security schemes were pioneered in Newcastle, by a partnership between the best-led and most effective police force in Britain and people in some of the toughest and least well-off communities and neighbourhoods? Given that record of success, why does the Minister not offer Newcastle more support? Why does he keep refusing it new CCTV schemes, given that it pioneered their development?

Mr. Sackville: Two hundred schemes were funded in the last round. We reckon that the total programme over four years will lead to the installation of 10,000 more cameras throughout the country.
CCTV is one of the Government's major law-and-order achievements, and has led to a reduction in crime everywhere. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this year violent crime fell by 9 per cent. in Northumbria, robberies by 11 per cent., burglaries by 19 per cent., theft by 13 per cent., vehicle crime by 12 per cent. and thefts of motor vehicles by 16 per cent. All that leads to a greater feeling of well-being among residents who are protected by CCTV.

Vandalism

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives he plans to introduce to combat vandalism against property. [19789]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): The fight against vandalism is part of the Government's overall fight against crime. We recognise that the best initiatives against this particular crime are co-ordinated at local level, and we have made available £50 million for the introduction of closed circuit television systems which, wherever they are installed, can be effective in the detection and reduction of vandalism.

Mr. Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the majority of incidents of vandalism against property in my constituency are carried out by juveniles? Does he accept that the best way to deal with them is to encourage greater

parental responsibility, to bring more secure training centres or units into operation sooner, and to make greater use of closed circuit television? I am pleased to report that Macclesfield has been successful in the third round of bidding for CCTV for the town centre.

Mr. Kirkhope: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his activity in connection with the successful Macclesfield town centre bid. The Government provided more than £92,000 to assist with 11 cameras, which I am sure will have a strong effect on crime in my hon. Friend's area. We should like to have secure training centres in place as soon as possible. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said, we have signed the first contract, for Cookham Wood, which should be operational early next year. It would have been helpful if Labour, where it is entrusted with power at local level, had been more supportive of our planning applications for secure training centres. If Labour really wants to attack crime and criminals, why does it not take actions that are consistent with that?

Mr. Henderson: The local authority in Newcastle upon Tyne has been co-operative, and vandalism has still soared. Is the Minister aware that criminal damage crimes have increased by 197 per cent. since 1979? What does he say to people who have suffered from the damage that soaring vandalism has caused in their communities? Does he admit responsibility?

Mr. Kirkhope: I say to those people, "Beware of a party which has never supported the Government's attacks on criminals, vandals and all such people." People should beware of that, not of a Government who have done so much to attack crime.

Prisons (Ministerial Visits)

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Minister responsible for prisons most recently visited a prison, and what was the purpose of the visit. [19790]

Miss Widdecombe: Earlier this week I visited HM prison ship Weare, and before that I visited Spring Hill prison Buckinghamshire, on 11 March. That completed my tour of all prisons in England and Wales. I visit prisons to see for myself what is happening at individual establishments and to talk to staff, prisoners and members of boards of visitors about matters of concern to them. It is a particularly important part of my role as prisons Minister.

Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her commitment to the Prison Service. She is the first Minister to visit all the prisons in England and Wales. Does she agree that, since the Prison Service became an agency, there have been considerable improvements? For example, the degrading exercise of slopping out has been abolished. There is now a much more constructive, but austere, regime. In short, prisons should not be hotels in which prisoners relax.

Miss Widdecombe: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. I can confirm that, since achieving agency status, the Prison Service has made remarkable strides.


Not only has it achieved that which my hon. Friend has outlined, but there has been a reduction in the escape rate of some 80 per cent., a rise in purposeful activity of some 7 per cent., an increase in education, and elimination of the practice of placing three prisoners in a cell designed for one. Those achievements have been brought about because the Prison Service, its management and staff and the Government have been committed to such improvements despite the endless catalogue of damnation by the Opposition, who do nothing but point to the bad news. They demoralise the service with their constant criticism. They never acknowledge and praise the service for its achievements. I am pleased to do that and I suggest that Opposition Members join me in so doing.

Mr. Skinner: When the Minister was visiting the prisons in Britain, did she take her handcuffs with her, and how many times did she bump into that well-known recidivist the Home Secretary?

Miss Widdecombe: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what I am sure will be his forthcoming retirement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—in keeping with his own policy, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on turning round our attitudes towards public protection, again in the teeth not only of ignorant opposition from Labour Members, but of nothing from them but concern for the criminal and for being soft on those who repeatedly prey on the public. When my right hon. and learned Friend returns on May 2, he will carry on that programme to the shame of Opposition Members and to the great benefit of the people of this country.

Criminal Justice System

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning delays in the criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement. [19791]

Mr. Howard: I frequently receive representations about delays in the criminal justice system, which is why my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I set up the review, the report of which I published on 27 February.

Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the speeding up of the criminal justice system that will flow from his review paper will be warmly welcomed by the public, and that they will not be taken in by Opposition Members who side with all the vested interests that simply do not want to speed up criminal justice? Will not people conclude that it is the Home Secretary who is interested in speeding up criminal justice and that Labour wants only to sound as if it wants to speed it up?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The potential benefits of these proposals would lead to almost all defendants being in court the day after they are charged, compared with fewer than 20 per cent. now, about 50 per cent. of defendants being convicted the day after charge, compared with 3 per cent. now, and young offenders appearing in court within days of committing

their offence, instead of the present average of 10 weeks. I have yet to hear expressions of support from the Labour party for the measures in that review.

Mr. Michael: As one who campaigned for an ending of the delays in criminal justice for many years before coming into this place, I am amazed by the Home Secretary's response. After 18 years, why has it taken an imminent general election to get the Home Secretary to admit what we have been telling him for years: that justice delayed is justice denied to victims, to offenders who need to be punished and to ordinary people whose communities have been damaged by crime under the Conservatives? Why have the Conservatives failed to cut the scandalous delays, particularly as proved by the Audit Commission, in the youth justice system?

Mr. Howard: Here we have it again. The Labour party pays lip service to the objectives, but says nothing about the way in which those objectives can be achieved. Why did the hon. Gentleman not tell us whether his party agreed or disagreed with our proposals? Why did he not tell us whether it would support their implementation? Labour Members are not prepared to tell us what their attitude to these matters is. They simply get up and offer platitude, after platitude, after platitude.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is not the worst delay in the criminal justice system the delay in catching the criminals once they have committed their offences, and before they commit the next offence? Will my right hon. and learned Friend congratulate the Burton upon Trent police, who this year have increased yet again their rate of detection and who have reduced the rate of crime by 20 per cent. in the past three years? Does he agree that the Burton police and every other police force is now better trained, better equipped, better led, better paid and better supported by the law than they have ever been in our history, and will continue to be so only when we are re-elected?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend and I am delighted to join him in congratulating the Burton police on their performance, which mirrors the performance of the police service throughout the country, which has reduced recorded crime in the past four years by the largest amount since records were first kept in 1857.

Young Offenders

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of crimes committed by young people. [19792]

Mr. Maclean: The best indicator we have of youth crime is the number of young people known to have been involved in offending. In 1995, 179,000 persons aged under 18 were either cautioned by the police or convicted by the courts.

Mrs. Prentice: Does not the Minister realise that young offenders commit some 7 million crimes, yet only 1.3 per cent. of them are ever prosecuted, and that half of those who are prosecuted find that their criminal charges


are dropped or that they get absolute or conditional discharges? Does he not realise that, by the time the young offenders reach court, the offence is a distant dream? Does he now accept that our policy of fast-track punishment for young offenders is the only way to solve the problem?

Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Lady is concerned about juvenile crime, she should welcome our Green Paper. All the Opposition have produced is a ragbag of incoherent soundbites and wish lists and no idea about how to make them work in practice. The Government have a carefully thought out strategic approach which goes to the root of juvenile offending. From what we have heard this afternoon, a party that thinks it can solve juvenile crime by abolishing the rule of doli incapax is not living in the real world. Perhaps the hon. Lady should take up the issue with the shadow spokesman who voted against curfew orders in 1990, voted to cut community sentences from 240 hours, voted to cut the sentence at attendance centres, and said that holding parents responsible for controlling their children's behaviour would only make matters worse. We cannot trust a word Labour says on crime.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 March. [19812]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Mullin: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he could, if he wished, without any impact on the date of the general election, extend the life of this Parliament by the few days necessary to allow Sir Gordon Downey to publish his report? If so, I suggest that as soon as he leaves here, he nips down to the palace, has a quiet word with Her Majesty and puts an end to this distasteful business once and for all.

The Prime Minister: There has already been a Privy Council to determine Prorogation, and I have no intention of changing it. Prorogation always follows within days of an election announcement. When I announced the date of the election and Prorogation, the House was not surprised—[Laughter.] There was no surprise about the date of Prorogation, and when I announced it there was no representation then or at any time in the past, publicly or privately, from the Labour party about changing the date—not once. It was not until the unemployment figures were leaked that this became an issue.

Sir Jim Spicer: During the campaign, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be coming to the south of England and, we all hope, to Dorset. When he comes to Dorset, will he pass on to the people there and all those in the area served by Southern Electricity the good news that, as from Tuesday, they will have had an 11 per cent.

cut in their electricity bills during the past nine months, which amounts to £40 to £50 off their bills? Is not that proof that privatisation works, and would it have happened if we had had a windfall tax?

The Prime Minister: rose—

Mr. Skinner: Do not travel by train.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Bolsover says that I should not travel by train. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has indicated to his constituents that he may be retiring from the House now that he is 65—we shall miss him. If so, he will have plenty of time to travel by train and the fares will be lower, following privatisation, than they were before—just like water—

Mr. Prescott: There will be no trains.

The Prime Minister: The deputy leader of the Labour party says there will be no trains. As he is sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, he knows a great deal about strikes. I did not notice him offering much condemnation of strikes last summer, when they were threatened. He stands for strikes; that is his whole history. The reality is that customers are benefiting from falling prices and the improved service levels created across the board by privatisation. From memory, I think that it was the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) who once said that, after electricity privatisation, there is no doubt that "prices will rise". Since privatisation, prices have fallen.

Mr. Blair: May I remind the Prime Minister of his firm and unequivocal promise, made last October, to do all that he could to have the report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges published? May I suggest to him two ways in which that could be done? The first is to seek a postponement of Prorogation. The second is to agree with the Labour party and other Opposition parties a one paragraph Bill to allow the Committee to sit from now until Dissolution, on 8 April. Will he co-operate and allow us to do that—to fulfil his clear and unequivocal promise to the people of this country?

The Prime Minister: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman quotes partially, but I shall deal with the substance of what he said. Of course I would have preferred to have had the matter finished. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said that months ago. I would have liked to have had all the inquiries finished. I would have liked to have had the inquiries into the funding of the Leader of the Opposition's office and the deputy leader's office finished.
Sir Gordon Downey's report is not finished, and it has not yet gone to the Committee. When it gets to the Committee—as the right hon. Gentleman knows—that will be the start, not the conclusion, of the process. It is obviously a complex report—[Interruption.] It has been made clear that there are thousands of pages of evidence; it is obviously complex, and it will obviously take time to consider. Those hon. Members who may be criticised will obviously wish to make representations and give evidence. The thought that that could be done fairly and properly in a few days is improbable in the extreme. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. He also knows that,


based on what has happened on earlier occasions, parts of the substance of the report might leak in a prejudicial way before the matter is fairly concluded. That would not be in the interests of the House or of natural justice. I have no intention of changing the Prorogation date of the House.

Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister says that I quoted partially his comments of last October. Last October, in the "Breakfast with Frost" programme, he said:
Well I'll tell you now, I will tell that committee I believe they should publish the report … I want it settled, I want it settled David.
After Frost asked him whether he hoped it was
reported and … published before the next election",
he said, "Absolutely."

Mr. David Shaw: £2 million blind funds.

Mr. Blair: If the objection is based on time, may I suggest to the Prime Minister that he let the Committee sit? If it cannot finish its report for genuine time reasons, so be it. What is surely outrageous is for the Committee—

Mr. Shaw: £2 million blind funds.

Madam Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Shaw to order.

Mr. Blair: The Committee is able to sit, and the Commissioner's report will be ready on Monday. The hon. Members concerned want the report to be published. It is absolutely outrageous not to let the Committee have the time even to try. If the Prime Minister continues to stonewall, people will believe that the reason is not technicalities or can't, but won't.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is still quoting what I said selectively. I made it clear that although I wanted the report to be published speedily, and I did, it was a matter for Gordon Downey and he would have to take the time he needed to deal with the matter properly. Perhaps his task would have been easier if some people had not delayed handing over important evidence—but that was not the Government. The fact of the matter is that this needs to be dealt with impartially, not in an atmosphere in which it could be selectively leaked to damage people who may have nothing whatsoever to hide.
The right hon. Gentleman had no interest in this on Monday; he had no interest in this on Tuesday; he had an interest only when he had the unemployment figures leaked to him—to try to hide what is actually happening. This is a matter that needs dealing with fairly in the interests of the Members concerned, not in the way the right hon. Gentleman wishes to deal with it. What he wishes is to let a smear stand, not let justice be done in its own time.

Mr. Blair: Justice demands that this report be published. That is what justice demands. Any members of the public watching that interchange will conclude that the Prime Minister simply does not want it published because he fears its publication. Has not this Parliament ended as it began—[Interruption.] It has ended as it began, with the Government breaking their word. If the Prime Minister fails to have this report published, when

everyone knows that he could, it will leave a stain on the character of his Government that will be erased only by a new Government with a fresh mandate, who will restore confidence in our public life for good.

The Prime Minister: The stain, if stain there will be, is upon a Labour Front Bench that has smeared and smeared and smeared again. The Labour leader has traded in double standards from the moment he took up office. This is the Labour leader who sells policy to the trade unions for cash—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; who refuses to comply with the code of practice on party funding—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; who calls for party openness but will not publish the secret funds of his own office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; who attacks share options but takes money from millionaires for his own party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; who attacks business men and asks them to fund things for him, who flew Concorde and failed to declare it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; who has a deputy leader who spends a weekend at a five-star hotel and does not declare it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; and who flies to the other side of the world to do newspaper deals and never admits to them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If there are any double standards, they sit there—on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. David Shaw: Game, set and match.

Madam Speaker: Order. I would like to hear the next question and the next answer.

Mr. Churchill: Before taking what I hope is only a temporary leave of the House, may I, on behalf of my Manchester constituents, thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for making the United Kingdom the best functioning economy in all of Europe, with half the levels of unemployment of France or Germany? Is it not precisely because those two countries have not had the benefit of a Thatcher-Major revolution that they are suffering from what, in Labour days, used to be known as the British disease?

The Prime Minister: Before I respond to my hon. Friend, I should like to say that I noticed when I last sat down that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) is back in the House following his dreadful accident. My right hon. Friend will be retiring at the end of this Parliament, but he will leave behind him reforms to our procedures that have greatly improved the workings of the House. I am delighted to see him here and I wish him a speedy and full return to complete health.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) about economic conditions. We now have more jobs, better education, improving health and falling crime—that is our achievement. While the Labour party spends its time trying to disown its past, I spend my time improving our country's future.

Mr. Ashdown: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order—both sides.

Mr. Ashdown: We raised this matter on Tuesday and I am raising it again now. Can I bring the Prime Minister back to the central question? There is clearly both provision and precedent to give the House the opportunity to clear up the cash for questions scandal once and for all next week if the Prime Minister wishes it, but he does not. Sir Gordon Downey regrets that, the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges regrets it, Conservative Members who are still under a suspicion of sleaze regret it and the nation no doubt deeply resents it. Is the Prime Minister to be the only person who will use a technicality to stand in the way of truth? If he does, he should not be surprised that the

country will conclude that he enters the election as he conducted his Administration—on a broken promise, on a slippery evasion and with his party mired in accusations of sleaze.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman ends as pious and pompous as he has been throughout this Parliament. If what he said were correct, why did not his member of the Committee ask for what the right hon. Member for Sedgefield asked for—for he did not? Why did not the Labour members of the Committee ask for what the right hon. Member for Sedgefield asked for—for they did not? This has been a political stunt by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield and the leader of the Liberal party and they both know that it has been a political stunt from the moment they learnt what the unemployment figures were.

Electoral Registration

Mr. Harry Barnes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members leaving the Chamber should do so quietly and very quickly. We have business to attend to.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the standing of electoral registration arrangements for the coming general election.
This morning, electoral registration figures for constituencies in England and Wales were placed in the Commons Library. The House now holds electoral registration figures for each constituency in the United Kingdom. The total registration figures are 44.2 million—a marginal increase of less than 0.5 per cent. on last year, which is easily accounted for by the growth in the population of over 18-year-olds. The figures can be added to only by the numbers on the supplementary lists, which close today.
The figures for the 1997 general election are as bad as the figures in recent years. They show a 2 million shortfall against relevant population figures, but that 2 million shortfall should be cut by half a million to accommodate residents from overseas other than Ireland and the Commonwealth. That would mean a 1.5 million shortfall in the registers—if the registers were up to scratch.
Survey work shows that some registers are dated when they are initially published. They include people who have died, names that are just carried over from previous registers, people who have been double-counted by being on more than one register, and many who have moved and will not be able to get hold of their postal vote or use it.
When all those factors are taken into account, we see that 3 million to 4 million people are missing from the registers. They are not a random sample of society; missing names are especially likely among Commonwealth citizens, black people, those in bed-sitter land, young people and city dwellers, especially those in London and particularly inner London. Given that we now have a general election, this matter, confirmed by today's figures, should be debated before we depart for the hustings.

Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I have, of course, to give a decision without stating the reasons for it. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit the application to the House.

Points of Order

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not having given you greater notice of the matter; I was notified only at 2.27 pm of your provisional selection. I notified your secretary immediately to say that I would try to raise the matter.
There is an amendment on the Order Paper tabled by members of the Procedure Committee of all three parties following a unanimous decision by the Committee on the naming of Standing Committees. It is a simple amendment which suggests that Standing Committees dealing with public Bills should be known as Public Bill Committees so that the name shows the meaning of the Committee.
There is hardly any need for a debate—indeed, it was at the suggestion of the Leader of the House that such an amendment was tabled. Would you, Madam Speaker, between now and the moment when the matter comes before the House, reconsider the issue? Senior Members serve for many months on Committees considering matters of no real benefit to themselves. When they come forward with a unanimous view and that view is not allowed to be tested in the House, it is immensely depressing. Members may be discouraged from serving on Committees in future.
There is no need for a debate on the matter; there is merely a decision to be made. Apparently, the only opposition is emanating from the Chairman of Ways and Means. The House should be allowed to make the decision and I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will allow that when you reconsider the matter.

Madam Speaker: I considered the matter carefully this morning. I do not give reasons for the non-selection of amendments. I appreciate very much the work that the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee have done on procedure; it is very much unsung. He has, however, hit the nail on the head himself. He said that the House should be allowed to decide the matter. Under our procedures this afternoon, the House will not be allowed to debate the matter. When it comes to changes to Standing Orders, it is absolutely right that the House has an opportunity to debate the matter. I have given a reason for my decision; it is right that I should do so because it is an issue that concerns the entire House.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I have your help? I understand that the Minister for Railways and Roads has issued a press statement relating to the widening of the M25. I complain on two counts. First, when the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), was Secretary of State for Transport, he made a statement in the House about the widening of the M25. Subsequently, Ministers reneged on that statement in the House—I do not say that provocatively—when they amended the decision.
Under the cloak of the great sweep of history taking place today, the Minister for Railways and Roads is issuing a statement, although he is not coming to the House to do so, announcing that the widening of the


M25 between junctions 12 and 15 should be increased to 10 and 12 lanes. I also believe that he will announce it by way of an answer to a parliamentary question that I asked.
When I came into the Chamber, there were no replies for me on the board, yet the press and journalists are aware of the announcement. That is wrong on two counts. First, the Minister should tell the House and the people—especially the people of Surrey—about the widening proposals and not try to sweep them through under the smokescreen of today's constitutional events. Secondly, if he is using my parliamentary question to make the announcement, I should have had the courtesy of a reply and the press should not have had it first. To be fair, Madam Speaker, I am not certain about the latter, but I suspect it.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member should not raise the matter if he is not certain about it. How can I answer a point of order on something about which he is not certain? Of course, I deprecate the fact that any Minister makes a statement by press release before letting the House know, either through an answer to a question, as the hon. Member said, or at the Dispatch Box—it is up to the Minister concerned. I can make no comment on the fact that the hon. Member suspects that the Minister is going to do something.

Mr. Mackinlay: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Yes, it is convoluted. Go on.

Mr. Mackinlay: I did not fully elaborate on the fact that Cabinet rules are operating. The Minister of State, Scottish Office rightly referred to that in the House yesterday, when he said that he could not make any executive decisions because the general election had been called, yet that constitutional principle is being breached by the Minister for Railways and Roads this afternoon.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Am I not correct in assuming and stating to the House that, even after the date of the general election has been announced, it is in order and in accordance with the procedures of the House and Parliament for a Minister to answer parliamentary questions? I believe that that is what has happened.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. David Winnick: A final appearance.

Mr. Faulds: Sadly, yes. The House will miss me. May I make as my last contribution, Madam Speaker, after 31 years of the most distinguished service, a valuable contribution to the proceedings of this august Chamber? When I first came here—

Mr. Tony Banks: "Friends, Romans, countrymen".

Mr. Faulds: Shut up, you silly little boy.
When I first came here 31 years ago, the custom was never ever to thank the Speaker for catching someone's eye. Can I implore you in the next Parliament—I do trust and pray that you will be where you are now—to instruct Members not to go through that rather placatory practice of thanking you for simply doing your duty? This is a new development and it really is not a very pleasant practice.

Madam Speaker: I would not dream of agreeing to what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A report was published this morning—not the one that has already given rise to some heated exchanges—by the Select Committee on Science and Technology, on the cloning of animals from adult cells. That report raises a number of important issues and seeks to reassure the public in the context of the fears that have been expressed in the media. Part of that report referred to the funding of the Roslin institute—an important scientific institute—by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In the report, the actions of MAFF were described as being damaging to British industry and science—

Madam Speaker: Order. Just a moment. I am very tolerant today, but the hon. Gentleman is trying me a little. He must come to his point of order and what I can do about it and not rehearse what is in the report.

Mr. Miller: I appreciate that, Madam Speaker, and sympathise with your difficulties. Given that the report describes MAFF as "cavalier and blinkered" and we have been told that some of its actions—we have been told this only informally—are to be addressed, would not it be appropriate for a Minister to come to the House to tell us what action he intends to take to address those criticisms as a matter of urgency? The public are deeply concerned about the matter.

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, regardless of what he thinks is important—no doubt the issue is important—if a Minister had intended to make a statement, it would have said so on the annunciator screen by 1 o'clock. I call Mr. Banks.

Mr. Tony Banks: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We shall all miss the wise counsels of that wonderful old thespian, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). Have you received a request for a statement from a Foreign Office Minister about the Portuguese police's disgraceful and brutal treatment of Manchester United supporters in Oporto last night? No one would defend riotous behaviour, but by all accounts, Manchester United supporters were set upon in the most appalling way. All British citizens, regardless of whether they are football supporters travelling abroad, are entitled to protection. Is there any way in which we can get a Minister to the House, so that we know that some form of inquiry and protection for our citizens abroad is being put in place?

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that Ministers do not request to make a statement;


they tell me that they are going to make a statement. I have not been informed by any Minister that a statement is being made on that matter today.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise not to express my disappointment at the fact that Question 2 of Prime Minister's questions, which I tabled, was not reached, but in respect of the debate on Standing Orders. Although I understand the reason why you have not selected the amendment—I am one of the signatories to it—does the way in which the motions are set out on the Order Paper mean that we shall have the opportunity of debating the main points? The Standing Orders that are being amended have not been debated, and a number of motions refer to an order of 19 March.

Madam Speaker: The House agreed yesterday that there should be no debate on those Standing Orders.

Mr. Mike Gapes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that among the Bills on today's Order Paper is the Holocaust Denial Bill, which had its First Reading on 29 January, its Second Reading without opposition on 28 February and went through Committee unamended on 12 March? Given that there has been widespread support on both sides of the House for the Bill, could you persuade the Government, even at this late stage, to ensure that it gets on to the statute book before the end of this Parliament?

Madam Speaker: I should like to think that I have some powers of persuasion, but I fear that, in relation to the Government, I have no persuasive powers at all.

Mr. John Gunnell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that

you have commented on a matter that was raised today as if it were unresolved? Sir Gordon Downey has written to make it absolutely clear that, as far as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition's office is concerned, there is no question of it being a matter of dispute. He states in his letter, which I think you have already raised in response to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw):
I shall be advising the Committee that in my view there is no case to answer.
Surely that should not be linked with Sir Gordon Downey's great regret that his report has not been published and cannot be published during the election campaign, as the report makes clear.

Mr. David Shaw: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I point out that I have subsequently written to Sir Gordon Downey, and my understanding is that the investigation into the Leader of the Opposition's office over the £2 million of blind funds is still under way, still an open issue and can be raised during the election campaign as a very valid question about the Leader of the Opposition?

Madam Speaker: It is not a matter for me if the matter has been referred. I note the point made by the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell). I have seen some correspondence in relation to that myself.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in establishing and maintaining the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day — Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE ON FURTHER CONVICTION FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 16, leave out from ("opinion") to ("may") in line 19 and insert

("that it would be in the interests of justice for it to pass a sentence other than the sentence which that subsection would require it to pass, it")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6 and 31.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The amendments should not pass unremarked, because they represent a substantial climbdown by the Government from the wholly unreasonable position that they had previously adopted. Had the Government earlier displayed the same flexibility as they have been driven to demonstrate in the past few days, we might have had a much more constructive discussion about the best way to reform the law of Scotland.
The amendments that were accepted in the House of Lords have substantially restored the discretion of the judiciary on sentences for serious crimes. Perhaps more significantly, the Government have allowed an independent tribunal for Scotland to deal with miscarriages of justice. The Government rejected such a tribunal wholly and completely, notwithstanding the

powerful and trenchant terms of the Sutherland report. At the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Ayr last year, the Secretary of State for Scotland suggested dismissively that such a body for Scotland was unnecessary. Proud though we may be of the law in Scotland, we cannot assume its infallibility. In the past, the cases of Patrick Meehan and of Preece, among others, have shown that the legal system has been inadequate to deal with cases in which justice has not been properly done.
The amendments are a considerable improvement on the Government's original proposals. It is a great pity that they did not approach the matter in the constructive and consensual way that it deserves. I do not know whether the amendments will be described as driving a coach and horses through the Bill, but it is in a better state now than when it was first conceived. The Government could have had it in this condition if they had demonstrated any willingness to co-operate with the Opposition parties.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to Question 306 on today's Order Paper. I believe that a forged question has been put down in my name. I have discussed the matter with the Table Office, and the signature on the question looks like mine, but it is not. The terms of the question are not mine either. I take great exception to that. Perhaps it is an end-of-term prank, but if it is, I do not appreciate the joke. I suggest that we use all the forces of law and order that the Government have introduced recently and submit the question paper to DNA testing, to try to find out with whom the question originated.

Madam Speaker: I do not approve of end-of-term pranks. I shall do all I can to have investigations made, to see how this came about. You can be assured of that, Mr. Gallie.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 81 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

Hedgerows

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the draft Hedgerows Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Ms Joan Ruddock: Unlike the Minister, I shall be taking the time of the House properly to debate these regulations, which are extremely important and do not deserve to be pushed through in this way in the late afternoon. On the importance of hedgerows to our landscape, I can do no better than quote from the briefing provided by the Wildlife Trust:
Hedgerows are a living example of our natural heritage—they contribute greatly to the quality of the landscape and are highly valuable for wildlife … Hedges are wildlife corridors sheltering a wealth of plant, insect and animal life. Three quarters of our native lowland mammals and birds and half our butterflies breed in hedges. The threatened dormouse and field vole nestle in their midst; along with nesting birds such as the tree sparrow and yellowhammer. They are also bountiful hunting grounds for stoats and weasels.
Laden with berries in the autumn, hedges provide rich pickings for both resident and visiting species. Hedge plants can provide nectar for butterflies and are often foodplants for their caterpillars.
Hedgerows vary regionally in species composition. The common perception of hedges in the UK is that they are generally hawthorn … which was planted as it was quick growing. However, hedges can be surprisingly species rich, with older ones containing more than five species in a 30 m length. A good kilometre of hedge can be home to 10 pairs of nesting birds. Beneath a hedge, the sward may harbour plants typical of ancient woodland and unimproved meadow such as bluebell, wild garlic, early purple orchid and harebell.
Since the Second World War … hedgerows have been removed at a much faster rate than they have been planted.
The Government promised as far back as 1990 to protect hedgerows. In 1992, they made it an election manifesto pledge. It is only now—at the eleventh hour of a dying Parliament—that they have fulfilled their promise. But they have done so pathetically.
The regulations are fundamentally flawed—a weak and timid attempt that will leave almost 80 per cent. of hedgerows unprotected. In the time it has taken this sorry Government to act on their promise, thousands of kilometres of hedgerows have been dug up and lost for ever. More than 10,800 km of hedgerow were removed between 1990 and 1993, and a further 67,500 km were classified as derelict. It is in that context that we must examine the regulations today.
We in the Labour party, like all wildlife and countryside non-governmental organisations, are amazed at the deficiencies of the regulations. They make no reference to the UK biodiversity action plan, which set targets for hedgerow conservation, as well as for several species dependent on hedgerows, such as the grey partridge and the song thrush.
Far from complementing the biodiversity action plan—as we would have expected—the regulations completely undermine it. It is an illustration of the gross inadequacy of the regulations that hedges which meet the action plan criteria set by the Government could still legally be removed under the regulations. In light of this, can the Minister—who is not prepared to speak on the regulations—tell us whether he thinks that the habitat action plan for ancient and/or species-rich hedgerows can now carry any credibility whatever in light of the regulations?
Nor do the regulations make any reference to the habitats directive, even though article 10 of the directive seeks to encourage the protection and management of linear features such as hedgerows for their value to flora and fauna.
The original proposal of four weeks for local planning authorities to determine applications for removal was heavily criticised. The Government's response is to offer six weeks, but that is still hopelessly inadequate. Owners can apply to remove a hedge at any time of the year. As the Minister knows, few data are available on the wildlife and biodiversity of most hedgerows.
Thus it is completely impossible for a local authority to carry out a meaningful wildlife survey of a hedgerow during the winter months if asked to do so. If the owners apply in winter, as they may well do, and the necessary information is not available, local authorities will be unable to make any adequate assessment that takes the biodiversity into account and hedgerows with a significant biodiversity interest will continue to be lost.
Furthermore, local planning authorities must now take into account the reasons for the removal of a hedge. That requirement was not in the original proposals, and we can conclude that it has been inserted only because the Government have succumbed to some rather heavy lobbying. It is yet another example of their willingness to act in the interests of the few instead of the interests of the majority of ordinary people who value our natural heritage.
Does the Minister agree that farmers rarely remove hedges other than for economic reasons? How do the Government expect local planning authorities to make objective and consistent judgments on the economic and non-market benefits of hedgerows? Can he define a valid economic reason for removing an environmentally valuable hedgerow?
A look at the criteria for identifying important hedgerows reveals further fundamental failings. The criteria referred to species lists originating from the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the red data books. As the Minister must know, the Act is now 16 years old. We on the Opposition Benches are extremely puzzled as to why the regulations stipulate that only species lists published before the hedgerows legislation is implemented may be taken into account. That absurdity means that updated records and new sources of information, such as the lists compiled as part of the biodiversity action plan, will not be able to be used in the evaluation process, thus making a farce of that very process.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is particularly concerned that one effect will be the exclusion of many farmland birds, including some species—yet again—that the biodiversity action plan recognises as a high priority for conservation, such as the grey partridge and the song thrush. Surely that ridiculous failing has to be corrected, and would have been if it were not for the fact that the Government are intent on rushing the regulations through this afternoon despite the flaws within them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Ms Ruddock: Conservative Members are anxious to speak, and rightly so. I just hope that they will share my numerous criticisms.
Another glaring hole in the criteria is the omission of landscape value as a separately specified criterion. Although it involves some qualitative judgment, so, of course, do tree preservation orders, landscape assessments and the Department of the Environment's good practice guide to environmental appraisals.
It is a further failing of the regulations that they require local authorities to consult only parish councils. Of course they should consult parish councils, but many conservation and heritage bodies in Britain have built up great expertise during many years on local hedgerows. Why have the Government decided to exclude such groups? Surely it would be right for such bodies to be made statutory consultees.
The Minister will be aware that much wider public consultation procedures are required under other planning legislation, including the tree preservation orders, which surely bear some similarity to the regulations. If the planning process is to be truly more democratic, we need to increase the scope for public consultation.
It is a telling indictment of the low priority that the Government give to hedgerow legislation—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend give a clear undertaking that when she is sitting on the Treasury Bench she will bring forward regulations that will really work at the earliest opportunity?

Ms Ruddock: I am delighted to respond positively to my hon. Friend on that point.
I was pointing to the low priority that is signalled in the regulations by the maximum fine for illegally removing a hedgerow—just £5,000, compared with £20,000 for breaking tree protection orders.
The Government have promised to produce guidance on the regulations for local authorities, but they have given hedgerow protection such low priority, and left it so late in the day, that we shall never set eyes on it.
However, a number of conservation bodies are anxious to see on the record for this afternoon a commitment from whoever forms the next Government to consult environmental interests before producing any such guidance, especially on how local authorities should evaluate the landowner's reason for removing a hedge.
I am happy to give the House today the commitment that, if Labour forms the next Government, we shall certainly hold those consultations. Will the Minister give such a commitment? Does he accept that only in extreme circumstances should a landowner's private interest be allowed to override a hedgerow protection order made in the wider public interest?
The regulations are perhaps unique in being roundly criticised by all the major environmental groups in Britain. On Monday this week, the umbrella organisation Wildlife and Countryside Link, representing 11 leading organisations and more that 3.5 million members, wrote to the Secretary of State urging him to withdraw and redraft the regulation.
The Government have chosen to fly in the face of that expert advice by insisting on squeezing in the regulations even when they are being forced to drop key clauses from their flagship Bills to get them through before the imminent end of this discredited Parliament.
I can confirm that, should Labour form the next Government, we shall consult all the interested parties and take urgent steps to strengthen the regulations in the interests of all our people and of our biodiversity and our countryside.

Sir Kenneth Carlisle: I am delighted to have this last opportunity to speak as a Member of Parliament and on the environment and countryside.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) was a little curmudgeonly in her welcome of the measure. After all, this is the first statutory instrument on hedgerows, and it is a fulfilment of our commitment in the Environment Act 1995 to take action to protect hedgerows. This is the first time that any Government of any political persuasion have introduced such a measure.
The statutory instrument should be seen in the wider context of what we have done for the environment and to promote conservation within the countryside. I am delighted to have joined the countryside stewardship scheme. It was only two or three weeks ago that, under that scheme, I planted 300 m of new hedgerow on my farm. I have a programme to plant about that amount of new hedgerow on our land in Suffolk in each of the next five years. Hundreds of farmers throughout the country have benefited from that scheme to increase hedgerows. Once a hedgerow has been planted, one cannot plough up to it: one undertakes to leave at least 6 m of good tussocky grassland on each side.
The Government have encouraged the planting of more hedgerows. It is wrong for the hon. Lady to suggest that we have not done that.

Ms Ruddock: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, despite the good efforts of people like him, who are to be applauded, there are more hedgerows disappearing than there are kilometres of hedgerows being planted?

Sir Kenneth Carlisle: I do not have the facts to hand, but in the countryside in East Anglia very few hedgerows are pulled up, and I see miles of new hedgerow. Attitudes to the countryside have changed. The Government have introduced this statutory instrument to protect older hedgerows, which are the most valuable, because they recognise that change in mood. This action was promised, and this legislation is a valuable first step. I welcome the measure, and I applaud the Government on their action.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, when he returns to the Front Bench after the general election, to monitor carefully the way in which the statutory instrument develops. Legislation is a learning curve, and new arrangements can be improved upon, so we should monitor carefully what happens. If necessary, we should take pragmatic steps to ensure that this legislation protects the most valuable ancient hedgerows.
I join the hon. Lady in asking the Minister to consult environmental interests before producing guidance for local authorities. One of the great successes of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been to come on board with those voluntary bodies. He is widely regarded as outstanding, because he consults those bodies widely on matters affecting the countryside, and listens carefully to them.

Ms Ruddock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for generously giving way. I acknowledge what he said about


the Secretary of State. He should also acknowledge that every major conservation body in this country is opposed to the regulations in this form, and they told the Secretary of State so on Monday.

Sir Kenneth Carlisle: The important thing is to get the statutory instrument on the statute book before Parliament is dissolved. This is a step forward, because it is the first time that such legislation has been introduced. I am sure that, when my right hon. Friend is again in government as Secretary of State for the Environment, he will carry these measures forward. This is not a one-off: conservation measures have progressed throughout my 18 years in Parliament. They are now more pragmatic and more in tune with the wishes of those of us who have a great regard for the countryside, and who want to secure the environment for future generations.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) gave the game away when he said that the important thing was to get the regulations on to the statute book in order to fulfil a promise. It is one of the few promises made by the Conservatives in their 1992 manifesto of which they will be able to say, "Well, we did it"—and people will not discover until after the election that the regulations will not work.
In fact, it is worse than that. We pass regulations time after time: the Government introduce some 2,500 each year. I see a role for regulations, but only for regulations that work; regulations that do not work create the bureaucracy that so many people dislike. As far as I can see, once the farmers have worked their way through these regulations, 80 per cent. of them will be able to find a way out of them. They will be able to do exactly what they want, unhindered by the regulations. The only hindrance is the fact that, rather than protecting hedgerows, the regulations merely confront the farmers with bureaucracy.
If the Government had come up with regulations that worked, I would be praising them, but it is surely absurd to construct a hurdle for farmers that will not protect 80 per cent. of hedgerows. Far from fulfilling an election promise, the Government have fudged their way out of it, claiming to be doing something for hedgerows but, in reality, doing very little.
I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what the regulations do to maintain hedgerows. The vast majority of the hedgerows that are now disappearing are not disappearing because someone is coming along with a bulldozer and pushing them out of the way, although that may have been the case 10 or 15 years ago. The majority are disappearing because of neglect. Farmers no longer prune hedges—I believe that "brush" is the technical term—and very few hedges are laid and maintained other than by voluntary groups and conservation volunteers. In large parts of countryside, traditional hedges are growing out to form a line of straggly hawthorn trees. When that happens, nearly all the biodiversity at the bottom of the hedge disappears. The berries on the trees may be useful to some birds, but many will lose out, especially those that live on the insects in hedgerows.
The regulations do not seem to do anything to maintain hedgerows—at least those in my constituency, where some attractive hedges remain along the river valley between Denton and Brinnington. Those that are disappearing are disappearing because of neglect. The Minister should take these regulations away, and return with regulations that will protect at least 90 per cent. of hedgerows. If the Government must produce bureaucracy, they should design it to ensure that farmers do not deliberately destroy hedgerows, rather than presenting a cosmetic proposal that will merely generate bureaucracy and will make very little change to the countryside. They should include in the regulations powers to ensure that neglected hedgerows are protected, as well as hedgerows that people deliberately try to remove.
I hope that we have seen the back of the present Government, and that I shall soon see my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) at that Dispatch Box, introducing regulations that will protect hedgerows into the next century.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: It is a great privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), who—like me, and others who are present today—served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill that became the Environment Act 1997. His knowledge of the countryside and the environment is unsurpassed in the House, and he will be a great loss to it.
I fear that I must be slightly ruder than my hon. Friend. What we have heard today, in the dying moments of this Parliament, is the true voice of the Labour party, and the reality of their policy on the countryside. I believe that farmers in my Northumberland constituency will have listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), and will have been warned of what they could face in the unlikely event of a Labour Government.
The Labour party has not changed. It is still the tool of any pressure group wanting to promote an agenda. Labour will listen to it and promise to implement its proposals. The hon. Member for Deptford has forgotten the important fact that farmers have to make a living. That means that over the years they have had to change the landscape and field structures to meet modern requirements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln was right when he said that many farmers are planting hedgerows. If the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford looked at the figures properly, instead of merely taking them from the nearest pressure group, she would see that more hedgerows are being planted and that most are lost because of road construction and housing development. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for his understanding of the matter. I agree that one of the causes of hedgerow loss is lack of maintenance. We are not debating that, but it is a problem that we must address.
I welcome the regulations, although they will be a burden on farmers who planted the hedgerows in the first place. They will face increasing bureaucracy, and they already suffer enough from that. I do not pretend that I wholeheartedly welcome the regulations, but I accept that they are a sensible compromise between the needs of those who want total protection and those who want to see economic farming from a profitable countryside.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) who took part in debates on this issue before he joined the silent ones in the Whips Office. He brokered a good deal between the interests of farmers and those of serious conservationists who wanted hedgerow protection. The result is by no means ideal for farmers, but they will accept it and honour its principles.

Sir Kenneth Carlisle: As my hon. Friend says, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey presented, I think, two private Member's Bills on the subject, and was assiduous in promoting it.

Mr. Atkinson: I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey played an important part in formulating the regulations, which I hope will reach the statute book.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for finding time at the end of this Parliament to debate this subject. Perhaps it is partly as a result of my question to him on Thursday, when I asked whether the regulations that were laid on 3 March could be debated before the close of this Parliament.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said that many hedges had been destroyed because of neglect by farmers. I do not accept his argument, but if what he says is true, one of the reasons for neglect is a rural economy in disarray. Because of the way in which the economy has been managed and improved over the past 18 years—progress that would be put at risk by a change of Government—the rural economy has prospered, and that has allowed farmers to take more care of the environment in which they work.
In my constituency there is ample evidence that farmers look after the countryside. In Leicestershire there are wonderful examples of the art of cutting and laying hedges. I invite the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish to come and see what is happening in a prosperous rural constituency in which farmers pay great attention to the world in which they live and work. Instead of always attacking the rural community and running down farmers, I wish that Labour Members could come to the countryside to see the good work that is going on. My farmers do not neglect their hedges. I see a Labour Member who looks as if he has been through a hedge backwards, as have his policies.

Mr. Elliot Morley: The hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that not everyone in the countryside shares the concerns of groups such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which feel that, although some farmers have, of course, done some constructive things and indeed have received grants to do so, it is a shame that this measure could not have included some of the points that have been made by very respectable groups. Those groups represent, in some cases, farming and rural interests and rural communities, which want this measure to be properly done, rather than being rushed through with gaps in it, as at present.

Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman displays yet again, and unfailingly, the Labour party's attitude towards any

form of positive improvement of the countryside. I wish that the public would realise precisely what they are in for if they sleep-walk into a Labour Government.
I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), whose departure from the House is much to be regretted, on the benefits of the countryside stewardship scheme, which has allowed an increasing number of hedges to be planted and to be maintained in the past few years. The countryside is not to be viewed as something in aspic, destined always to remain the same.
To take another example from East Anglia, in south-west Norfolk, quite near Thetford, the part that I come from, there used not to be a hedge between our house and Ely cathedral 250 years ago. That position has completely changed as a result of farmers' need and desire to plant hedges, so the myth and the lies put about by the Labour party are much to be regretted, and will, I hope, be dealt with roundly.
I praise the co-operation of the Government with those interested in the countryside environment. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) was unable to understand the need for central and local government to work with parish councils and with the farming community. That is the best way in which to achieve the best results.
May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether farmers will be required to pay a fee to accompany their applications, if they should make one? If so, what is the likely level of those fees?
That is all I wish to say. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for bringing forward this measure for discussion and I trust that, before 1 June, when it comes into effect, proper and adequate consultations will be held with all interested parties.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to catch your eye in this short debate; I will be extremely brief, as I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wishes to get on to other business.
Before I say anything further, I declare my interest as a farmer and as a member of the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and other associated countryside bodies.
I too pay sincere tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) because it was he who promoted a private Member's Bill—

Mr. Bennett: Who wrecked it?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: At that time, I was not convinced of the need. I am sorry for the need to bring these regulations before the House because a small minority of farmers acted totally irresponsibly. Having said that, all responsible people in the countryside want hedges to be maintained.
With the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who is heckling me from a sedentary position, I sat through many hours on the Environment Bill. We have fulfilled our commitment in the Bill to introduce these regulations. Having passed that primary legislation, we are now able to make these order-making


powers. Indeed, the Labour party, which has been making such a fuss this afternoon, will now find it much easier to amend the regulations, if it wishes to, if they do not work in practice. I want them to work.
The Labour party is a single-issue pressure group party. It forgets that these hedgerows would not be there at all if it were not for the responsible farmers and landowners who planted them during the enclosures and afterwards, because they wanted country sports such as hunting and shooting to prosper. It is in hunting and shooting areas that we find the best hedges.

Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the vast majority of hedgerows were planted as a result of Acts of Parliament and in relation to getting permission for enclosures, and that Parliament laid down a condition that, if the enclosures were to take place, proper hedges were to be planted and maintained? It may be that bringing prosecutions under those old Acts of Parliament will be more effective than doing so under the regulations, but will he also admit that he was the one who wrecked the Bill of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), and that it was a little hard on him?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I do not accept that one iota. I tried to improve the Bill, but it was not possible to improve it to the standard that I thought was necessary. The hon. Gentleman made a good point about the enclosure legislation, and it is true that many Acts of Parliament required the planting of hedgerows. However, considerably more hedgerows have been planted since, and that is what I want to talk about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) rightly pointed out that he has an admirable record of planting hedges. I, too, have planted a net gain of over a mile of hedges. I plant at least 100 m of hedges a year and have done so for the past 15 years, almost without exception.
Responsible landowners want to see hedges maintained. It is my impression that farmers today are planting as much hedgerow as they are removing, and I believe that they are managing them better. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, in Leicestershire and Gloucestershire there is far more cutting and laying of hedges today than there was five years ago, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, with the amount of rambling he does, will have seen that.
I make one plea to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I hope that he will be able to encourage local authorities, if necessary through guidance notes, to implement the regulations with a sensible light touch. Some local authorities will implement them in a sensible way but, as with tree preservation orders, some local authorities will implement them in an overbearing, burdensome, bureaucratic and misunderstanding manner. I hope that he will be able to control those local authorities which do not implement them in the spirit that has been laid down today.
I would welcome the inclusion of economic interests. That is an important part of the regulations and is not supposed to drive a coach and horses through them. However, it is sensible that, if there is proper economic

consideration, where employment and agricultural businesses are important, that should be able to be taken into account.
I commend my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, because it is his commitment that has brought this issue before the House today, despite some opposition, and I welcome the regulations.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I, too, declare an interest as a landowner and as one who has planted considerable lengths of new hedgerows and revitalised old hedgerows.
Tributes have been paid in the House to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), and I am sure that they are well deserved. However, I make no secret of the fact that I was the Member of Parliament who objected to my hon. Friend's private Member's Bill. It is worth reminding the House why I did so.
It was the vogue a year or two ago to draw the Government's attention to the fact that they were over-regulating. That is a feature that has already been mentioned in this short debate. As I was at pains to explain to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey at the time, I saw his Bill as yet another piece of legislation that would add to the regulations and give more powers to local authorities and their officials, who, unlike farmers and landowners, probably have little or no understanding of the practical difficulties, problems and considerations of the countryside.
I regret that we are here again introducing regulatory legislation which gives another little rule book to local authority officials. It cuts across the spirit of much that those of us in the countryside want to do.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was critical of the fact that certain hedgerows were not being maintained. I am sure that that is the case in certain parts of the country and it may be more prevalent in some parts than in others. However, only last weekend, as I was driving in the countryside in the west of my constituency and in Wales, I remarked on the fact that I have scarcely ever seen so many hedges being layered in the traditional method.
It is important to put these things into perspective and to recognise that, with or without legislation, a great deal of good work is going on in the countryside by those who have traditionally maintained the countryside in the way that it exists now and which is so widely admired and attracts people to it. We cannot get away from the fact that that is being done by the countrymen.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Time is of the essence in many such matters. Although people want to keep important hedgerows, there will be commercial considerations, such as when someone buys a particular property at a particular time of year. If a local authority does not acknowledge receipt of a farmer's notice within 42 days, the farmer tries again. How will we know whether the notice has been received? The local authority may sit on a notice for a month or so before acknowledging receipt.

Mr. Gill: I cannot answer that question. However, my hon. Friend makes his own point in his own inimitable


way, and I am sure that the Minister will have noted his comments. We hark back to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who said that the matter now depends on how the regulations are imposed. It is to be hoped that they will be imposed with sensible and considerate appreciation of the problems faced by landowners and farmers.
Although I have conceded that much good work is being done, with hedges being layered and tendered in the traditional manner, in many instances the effect of the impending legislation has been to bulldoze hedgerows out of existence. That would not have occurred had no legislation been considered, and it is regrettable.
I shall not detain the House any longer, because I sense that Front Benchers are anxious to move on to other business. However, I did not want to miss this opportunity to say that I regard the measure as a retrograde step. It will provide local authority officials with a new Bible, which many of them will interpret in the most draconian manner, against the better instincts and judgment of landowners and farmers.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I should like to take a moment to reiterate some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) on the regulations. We welcome passage of the regulations, and the protection that will be offered for the first time to hedgerows in the United Kingdom—unless one takes into account the case of Filey, an interesting test case of enclosure legislation which is not mentioned in the regulations.
I should also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who has been a great campaigner on hedgerow protection. When I was first elected as a Member of Parliament, in 1987, one of the first issues in which I became involved was to support his—at that time—private Member's Bill to introduce hedgerow protection. The then Prime Minister made some promises, which were broken. Today, it is interesting to see some former wreckers of hedgerow protection on the Conservative Benches. They have suddenly turned into supporters of protection. It is always most pleasing to welcome the sinner repented.
I am sorry that the regulations could not have been passed with unanimous support—the support not only of landowners and farmers, but of countryside, conservation and green groups. That support has not been won, as the Minister knows. It is a shame that the regulations are being debated in the dying hours of this Parliament, because, like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I think that some issues have not been addressed.
One such issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford said, is biodiversity and the way in which hedgerows are assessed. Apart from hedgerows' conservation value, there must be some sophisticated assessment of such matters as green corridors. Much work is being done, especially on protecting small and endangered mammals, and that work will be undermined unless there are links between different types of habitat.
Hedgerows are one very important link. Some good habitats may be protected, but they may be surrounded by agricultural land and not linked into other areas that

provide feeding grounds and breeding areas. That issue has not been dealt with, and nor has the issue of time. Conservation groups' concerns have not been dealt with.
Although some groups feel so strongly about the regulations that they believe that we should oppose them, we feel that they are better than nothing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford said, a future Labour Government will revisit the regulations. We will consult all the countryside and conservation groups—including landowners and farmers—to strengthen the regulations and to make them more workable, and we will try to reach the consensus that the Government have failed to achieve.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I welcome that qualified welcome from the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).
I was slightly surprised by the attitude of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock): she seemed to be disappointed that we have introduced the regulations, although we were recently pressed to do so, not least in an Adjournment debate sponsored by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). We were pressed to introduce the regulations to prevent some landowners from pre-empting regulations.
Very recently, we were pressed also by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), an Opposition Environment spokesman, to introduce regulations to safeguard hedgerows. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) described the hon. Lady's welcome for the regulations as "curmudgeonly", although I think that that impression has partly been put right.
I do not want to be unkind, but I think that the hon. Member for Deptford got it wrong when she spoke about biodiversity and suggested that the regulations contain the sum total of our biodiversity action plans. Biodiversity and protection of wildlife are important features of the regulations, but they do not contain the sum total of our plans. She knows the way in which we have fulfilled our commitments under the Rio summit and the biodiversity action plans that we have already introduced. Many, if not all, of the species she mentioned—the grey partridge, the song thrush and the dormouse—are afforded protection within the framework of our biodiversity plans.
The hon. Member for Deptford was wrong on that point, and she was wrong on other points. Not least, she was wrong when she suggested that we have rushed into the regulations; others have said that we have taken too long. To fulfil our obligation of protecting important hedgerows, detailed analysis and research, and a great deal of consultation, have been required.
The commitment is to protect important hedgerows, which are hedgerows for which no replanting could be a substitute, and which are vulnerable to being removed. I should like to tell the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who takes an interest in the subject, that protection is not the same as maintenance of hedgerows. Maintaining hedgerows and planting new ones is promoted under the countryside stewardship scheme and by other assistance provided to farmers. The regulations are to protect important hedgerows.
It is important first to define what is an "important hedgerow", and we took some time and trouble to do so. As the hon. Member for Deptford knows,


we commissioned work from the Agricultural Development Advisory Service, which produced a report. Last year, we circulated that report for consultation. We certainly did not rush through the consultation process, during which we received more than 500 responses. We also listened to what we were told during consultation, and made changes to ADAS's proposals.
We have, for example, increased from four to six weeks the time afforded to local planning authorities to give or refuse consent to the removal of a hedgerow notified to them. We have also required authorities to consult parish councils. We regard that as important, because, as organs of local democracy, it is important that parish councils should have a say in the matter. That reform also fits in with other reforms that we have made affecting parish councils.
When possible, we have also tried to simplify the criteria. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, that, although it is necessary to protect the important hedgerows, it is important to keep matters as simple as possible. That is why there may be problems with some of the suggestions of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. It is important that the regulations are not so complicated as to be unworkable.
During the consultation process, we listened to what we were told about landscape. I heard the criticisms by the hon. Member for Deptford in this debate, and she will know that ADAS discovered in its investigation that landscape is a difficult issue.
However, we feel that the issue is addressed by our definition of "important hedgerows", and that many hedgerows that qualify as important, particularly under the historic and wildlife interest headings, will contribute to the landscape. After consultation, we also provided a new criterion, which recognises the important contribution to the landscape made by hedgerows along rights of way. That additional criterion will increase the number of hedgerows likely to be protected by regulations.
In our attempts to protect "important hedgerows"—as we have defined them—it has been necessary to strike a balance between bodies representing environmental and conservation interests and those representing farming and landowning interests. There is an inherent conflict, and some of that tension has been evident in our debate. We think that we have gone a long way towards getting the balance right.
Having said that, we appreciate that many farmers make a constructive contribution towards the preservation of the countryside, especially through the planting of hedgerows. We heard some excellent examples of that from my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), who has made a great contribution to the environment in his time in the House and will no doubt continue to do so, not only through the planting of hedgerows on his land, about which he told the House, but in many other ways. I am sure that everyone wishes him well in his important endeavours in that regard.
I am happy to be able to report that the most recent research conducted by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology shows that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Deptford said, there is a net balance in favour of the planting of hedgerows over their removal, which I am sure the House will welcome. That has no doubt been substantially assisted by the countryside stewardship scheme, another successful scheme launched by the Government to protect the countryside.
On the issue of punishment, the hon. Member for Deptford needs to study the regulations a little more carefully. Contrary to what she suggested was the maximum fine for transgressing the regulations, it is the maximum only for someone tried in a magistrates court on summary trial. The regulations also include provisions for trial on indictment in the Crown court, where someone who transgressed the regulations and was found guilty of an offence would face an unlimited fine. Far from being weak, that is a strong punishment, which signals our disapproval of people who break the law in this regard.
In addition, the regulations make provision for the replanting of hedgerows to be required. People who think that they can remove hedgerows and get away with simply paying a fine have another think coming, because they will be required to replant the hedgerows. The punishment is therefore more than adequate.
The hon. Member for Deptford also mentioned the circumstances in which local authorities could take account of the reasons given for wishing to remove an important hedge and still allow its removal. We were mindful of the fact that the ability to make representations and to have them heard is a central element of the business-friendly enforcement procedure promoted by the Government.
The wording of the relevant paragraph in the draft regulations is necessarily broad. It is impossible to anticipate and make provision for every eventuality, but the regulations place a requirement on the local planning authority to issue a hedgerow retention notice unless satisfied that the reasons given justify the removal of an important hedgerow. The presumption is therefore in favour of protecting and retaining important hedgerows. As the criteria defining importance have been tightly drawn, strong reasons will be needed to satisfy a local authority that an important hedgerow should be removed.
Each case will have to be considered on its merits, but I envisage that a local planning authority might consider that the removal of an important hedgerow was justified where there were overriding arguments of public safety—for example, to make way for essential improvements to a local road which was an accident black spot, where there was no other solution to the problem. Utilities might also have strong practical or even environmental grounds for needing to remove a small section of a hedge rather than reroute a cable across an even more sensitive area.
Cases involving personal financial loss are unlikely of themselves to be sufficient to justify the grubbing out of an important hedgerow. Factors that might, however, weigh with the local authority include the effects of a hedgerow on operational requirements and whether the impact could be mitigated by other means—for example, where a new road has cut through a field, leaving a portion too small to farm. However, there can be little doubt that the impact on a business would have to be extremely serious before a local authority would begin to consider allowing the removal of an important hedgerow.
A change of ownership of land and subsequent rationalisation of holdings would certainly not be enough. The register of retention notices held by the local authority would inform potential buyers of any existing restrictions.

Mr. Morley: I should like the Minister to clarify one point, although it may be difficult at this stage. If there is a dispute between a landowner and the local authority over any economic impact, the landowner presumably has recourse to the courts. If so, will guidelines be issued to give local authorities some idea of the limits to which they can go in their definitions?

Mr. Clappison: There is a right of appeal under the regulations, and we shall, of course, be giving guidance to local authorities. I hope that I have made clear the background against which we approach the matter and the principles that we think are important.

Mr. Marlow: What proportion of hedgerows does my hon. Friend estimate can be defined as important? If a farm that has been inefficiently farmed changes hands, it might be good in agricultural terms to remove some hedgerows to make it more efficient. What proportion of hedgerows are potentially blighted by the regulations?

Mr. Clappison: I hesitate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I would perhaps take issue with his use of the word "blighted". However, perhaps I can assist him. We have tried to define important hedgerows. The research carried out by ADAS, which necessarily took a broad-brush approach, as it was trying to project the situation across the whole country, found that, according to the criteria in the regulations, about 20 per cent. of hedgerows would be defined as important and thus protected.
The register of retention notices held by the local authority would inform potential buyers of any existing restrictions; or, if none had been issued, the criteria are

so framed as to enable owners to undertake their own evaluations and reach broadly the same conclusion as the experts. It will be a case of caveat emptor, or buyer beware. As I said, the guidance that will be issued to local authorities before the regulations come into effect will provide the opportunity to clarify such points.
I join those who have already paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who is in his usual silent mode. The tributes he has received are well deserved as a result of the private Member's Bill that he promoted. I must also pay tribute to the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), who takes a great interest in the environment, and is anxious to do what is necessary to protect important hedgerows.
The regulations deserve a broad welcome.

Mr. Garnier: I asked my hon. Friend whether there would be a cost to the applicant. If he cannot reply now, will he do so in writing?

Mr. Clappison: I can tell my hon. and learned Friend that the answer is no—no fees will be payable.
Opposition Members talked about the priority that they would accord to the protection of hedgerows. I must gently remind them, without being too partisan, that Labour's recent draft manifesto contained no mention of biodiversity, despite all the boasts from Opposition Members about the extent to which it would be a priority—[Interruption.] There was a mention of a free vote on fox hunting, but that is not my idea of biodiversity. When it comes to the crunch, biodiversity does not seem to have been given very great priority in Labour's literature; nor does the environment as a whole. We give priority to the environment, and the regulations are a practical example of our commitment to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Hedgerows Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.

Public Entertainment Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to acquaint the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows. The Lords have agreed to the Public Entertainment Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill with amendments, to which the Lords desire the concurrence of the House. Copies of the Lords amendments are available. Under the Order of the House of 19 March, no debate is possible.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the amendments made by the Lords to the Public Entertainment Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Legg.]

Question agreed to.

Lords amendments accordingly considered.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 34 agreed to.

TAX SIMPLIFICATION BILLS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 March],

That—

(1) Standing Order (Tax simplification bills) below be made;
(2) Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of bills) be amended, in line 2, after 'Bill', by inserting 'or a tax simplification bill'; and
(3) Standing Order No. 64 (Committee of whole House on bill) be amended, in line 7, at the end, by adding 'or unless the committee is discharged in pursuance of paragraph (8) of Standing Order (Tax simplification bills)'.

TAX SIMPLIFICATION BILLS

(1) In this order 'a tax simplification bill' means a bill which has been presented, or brought in upon an order of the House, by a Minister of the Crown and which has been ordered to be proceeded with as such a bill.
(2) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that a specified bill be so proceeded with, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

(3) A tax simplification bill shall, upon the making of an order under paragraph (2) above, stand referred to a second reading committee unless the House otherwise orders.
(4) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that a tax simplification bill shall no longer stand referred to a second reading committee, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
(5) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (6) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall apply to any bill referred to a second reading committee under paragraph (3) above.
(6) A tax simplification bill shall, upon its being read a second time, stand committed to the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills.
(7) A bill which has been reported from the said Joint Committee shall stand re-committed to a committee of the whole House unless the House otherwise orders.
(8) If a motion that the committee of the whole House be discharged from considering a tax simplification bill is made by a Minister of the Crown immediately after the order of the day has been read for the House to resolve itself into a committee on the bill, the motion shall not require notice and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed; and if such question is agreed to the bill shall be ordered to be read the third time.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

ALL-PARTY AND PARLIAMENTARY GROUPS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 March],
That this House approves the proposed written undertaking set out in the Annex to the First Report from the Administration Committee of Session 1995–96, on All-Party and Parliamentary Groups (HC 494), with the substitution for paragraph (i) of the following paragraph:
'(i) the group's membership is open to all Members of the House, and its aim and constitution are parliamentary in character; with the exception of those groups receiving funding from Her Majesty's Government, all groups cease to exist two calendar months after the first meeting of the new Parliament after a General Election unless re-registered within that period.'.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

Standing Orders (Revision)

5 pm

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the next motion. Before I go into my point of order, I draw the House's attention to the fact that your constituency is disappearing at the next election, and that it is therefore possible that you will not be with us in the next Parliament. I think that all hon. Members will wish to pay tribute to the wise guidance and excellent service that you have given the House. I should like that recorded so that we can all agree, even if it is on a point of order.
Turning to my point of order. As Deputy Speaker, you will know from Madam Speaker's provisional selection was that she might be minded not to call the amendment in my name and those of leading members of all parties on the Select Committee on Procedure. The argument was that it might be necessary to have a debate on the subject. We are passing the more important aspects of the Select Committee's recommendations without a debate, but not this minor matter, which had unanimous support on the Committee, including the support of a member of the Chairmen's Panel. It is a simple matter of whether a name should be changed.
As the original selection was only provisional, would you consider, in view of the good nature of the House as we come to the end of this Parliament, that it might be worth allowing a Division on the matter—there can be no debate—so that the House can be seen to be willing to modernise itself and not stay in subfusc, with names that have no relevance to what Committees are doing? If you decided that it would be right to make that alteration to the provisional selection, I should be most grateful.

Sir Michael Shersby: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to convey to you and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) the fact that the members of the Chairmen's Panel were certainly not in favour of the recommendation. I should regret it being debated at this late hour.

Sir Peter Emery: There cannot be a debate. I asked for a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about me, which are much appreciated. None the less, I fear that I shall have to disappoint him on his main point. I know the mind of Madam Speaker, who has decided that the amendment shall not be taken. There is no debate, and I have to put the Question forthwith. I have no doubt that there will be further opportunities in another Parliament for the kind of debate that the right hon. Gentleman wants.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I associate myself briefly and warmly with the remarks that have been made about you. I merely observe that, while I regret my right hon. Friend's frustration, I fear

that the atmosphere of good will in the House might have disappeared quite rapidly if you had agreed to what he asked, because my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) had come here to make trouble if the amendment was debated.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should be very remiss, as someone who has enjoyed your friendship for many years, if I did not say that you will be very much missed in the House. It would be wrong if it appeared that only one side of the House would miss you—I know that that is not the case. Nevertheless, I am sorry to have to tell you that the Leader of the House might be right in saying that I came here to cause a certain amount of trouble.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I can scarcely believe such a thing possible of the hon. Lady.

Mr. George Howarth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to identify in personal terms and on behalf of the Opposition with the thanks for your sterling service in the Chair. We shall all miss you, but I am sure that this will not be the last that we hear of you.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank all hon. Members who have given me such kind remarks to remember as I come to the end of my period of service in the House, which has been almost 27 years—longer than a life sentence.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 March],
That the repeals of, and Amendments to, the Standing Orders of this House relating to Public Business, and the new Standing Order, recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure in its First Report (HC 95), as set out in Appendices I (Recommendations: Revision) and III (Proposed re-ordering of select committee Standing Orders) thereto, be made, with effect from the first day of the new Parliament, with the following additions namely—

(a) Standing Order No. 94F (Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation)), line 16, leave out 'member of the government' and insert 'Minister of the Crown'; line 20 and line 37, leave out 'notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business' and insert 'at any hour, though opposed'; and
(b) Standing Order No. 126 (Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration), line 5, leave out 'Commissioner for Administration' and insert 'Ombudsman';
and subject to the following modifications to the recommendations set out in Appendix I, namely—

(1) recommendation 23, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert 'No. 98G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) and No. 99H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings))".';
(2) recommendation 24(a), line 8, after 'business)),', insert 'Standing Order No. 99A (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (composition and business)),'; and
(3) recommendation 27, line 5, after 'Crown";', insert 'line16 and'. —[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Special Grant Report (No. 27) (Community Care Special Grants for 1997–98) (HC 360), which was laid before this House on 5th March, be approved.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Question agreed to.

DEREGULATION

Madam Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the questions on the deregulation orders.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(1) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS

That the draft Deregulation (Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.

CASINOS AND BINGO CLUBS

That the draft Deregulation (Casinos and Bingo Clubs: Debit Cards) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.

FOOTBALL POOLS

That the draft Deregulation (Football Pools) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.

BETTING AND BINGO ADVERTISING

That the draft Deregulation (Betting and Bingo Advertising etc.) Order, which was laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.

NON-FOSSIL FUEL

That the draft Deregulation (Non-Fossil Fuel) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

STRUCTURAL FUNDS AND COHESION POLICY

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 1138296 on the structural funds, and 1261496 on cohesion policy; welcomes the Government's continued efforts to simplify and improve the effectiveness of the funds within the United Kingdom and throughout the European Union; and supports the Government's view that the reform of the funds for the period beyond 1999 needs to ensure that the funds are fair, transparent and efficient, and needs to enable the likely enlargement of the European Union in an affordable and durable manner.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Green Belt Land

Sir Michael Shersby: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of residents of the constituency of Uxbridge who are opposed to the plans of Hillingdon council to transfer land at the rear of Granville road, Hillingdon from green belt status and to permit development. The petition states:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House refuse any such proposal from the London Borough of Hillingdon to remove the said land from the Metropolitan Green Belt following the public local inquiry which commences on 28 May. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray &c.
The second petition is signed by more than 15,000 of my constituents, representing the 40 local and national organisations that comprise the Hillingdon House Farm Action Committee. They oppose the proposed development of green belt land at Hillingdon House farm by Warner Brothers, to construct a theme park and film studio complex.
The petition says:
Wherefore we your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to use his powers to prevent the proposed theme park and film studio development on Green Belt land at Hillingdon House Farm, Uxbridge, and to retain the site as open space for the benefit of local people.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

To lie upon the Table.

Athletics

Miss Kate Hoey: I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the Save Athletics at Crystal Palace campaign, which was brought to me and to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). It contains 12,000 signatures collected by athletes from all over the United Kingdom who are concerned about the threat to athletics at Crystal Palace. It says:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House support the retention and further development of indoor and outdoor facilities for athletics at Crystal Palace National Sports Centre.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray, &c.

To lie upon the Table.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must inform that House that certain matters still have to be transacted that cannot be transacted at this moment. It is therefore in my mind to suspend the sitting for a short while. Before I do so, I must make it clear that this in no way infringes the rights of the hon. Gentleman who has the Adjournment, or any hon. Member with another petition.

Sitting suspended.

6 pm

On resuming—

PETITION

Jobseeker's Allowance

Mr. Jim Cousins: It is my honour to hand in a petition from the citizens of Newcastle upon Tyne concerning the jobseeker's allowance. The petitioners extend to the House the normal courtesies of this occasion and go on to say:
that the introduction of the jobseekers allowance has been disastrous for the unemployed people of the United Kingdom where one in five households of working age have no work, the worst record of the major economies.
And wherefore your petitioners pray that the jobseekers allowance should be abolished, and be replaced by a fairer system that recognises that unemployed people have a right to be treated with dignity and not coerced into low paid, temporary or part-time work and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray etc.
The petition is signed by Councillor Gerard Nugent, Councillor William Dodds, Councillor Sheila Spencer, Mr. Fred Copley and some other 1,000 citizens of Newcastle upon Tyne.

To lie upon the Table.

Child Support Agency

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coe.]

Mr. William O'Brien: This debate is about the Child Support Agency and the manner in which it has provided its services, which inflict massive injustices on families throughout the United Kingdom. It is the last Adjournment debate of this Government and it is appropriate that it deals with an issue that is causing so much trouble for so many families. Hon. Members on both sides are constantly being charged by constituents to take action to help families who are caught up in the inefficient way in which cases are dealt with by the CSA.
My complaint about the CSA is not new, but it is not without good cause. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was the Prime Minister who, in 1990, first suggested that an agency dealing with child support should be set up. In April 1993, the CSA began to operate. Many hon. Members have registered their complaints over the past four years about the way in which the CSA has treated many of their constituents. Since 1993, I have had cause to write to Ministers requesting investigations into many cases in my constituency, although assurances have been given that efficiency in dealing with cases will improve.
The CSA came into operation in April 1993 and there was then uproar throughout the country about its operation. Families were split up and it has been alleged that many people committed suicide because of the severity with which the CSA then operated.
In November 1993, I presented a petition to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), who was then the Minister responsible for the CSA, charging him to investigate certain issues that had been raised by constituents about the administration of the CSA. Assurances were given then that the CSA would be as efficient as Parliament intended it to be. During the debates that we had on the Child Support Bill, which introduced the CSA, we demanded efficiency. When I received the Minister's reply saying that the CSA would be as efficient as Parliament intended it to be, I took his words in good faith.
On 2 December 1993, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) secured an Adjournment debate in which he registered concerns about the work of the CSA. During that debate, assurances were given that the CSA would be more efficient. On 6 December 1993, the Minister told me that no changes were to be made to the powers of the CSA. There was a move away from trying to improve the CSA at that time.
On 15 December 1994, there was a debate on the CSA in which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) stated:
In some 25 years as a Member of Parliament, I do not think that I have ever before ventured into a debate on social affairs … we have created a monstrous bureaucracy which pours misery on misery and the many unfortunate people who have already gone through the mental, physical and financial trauma of divorce now have to deal with this ghastly organisation as well. As a supporter of the Government, I have never been so ashamed as when I have had to defend the CSA and what it has got up to in the past two years.
My immediate reaction is that the assessment formula is wrong and unfair. Until, with the wisdom of experience and other countries and the two inquiries by the Select Committee, a more reasonable


and equitable and less complex formula can be devised, there will be no substantive improvement in the management or operations of the CSA or its handling of cases."—[Official Report, 15 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 1096.]
There we have someone who has been a Member of the House for a considerable time outlining his concern about how the CSA, after two years in operation, was affecting his constituents. I am witnessing problems similar to those expressed by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare.
In July 1994, there was an Opposition debate calling for improvements in the work of the CSA and an end to the injustices brought about by it. During that debate, assurances were again given by the Minister that the CSA would improve its performance. On 23 December 1994, the Minister sent a letter to Members assuring us that there would be improvements to the CSA. He said:
the CSA can and will resume taking on all eligible cases and give them prompt and efficient service.
I shall demonstrate tonight that there is a lack of efficiency in the CSA.
On 20 March 1995, we debated on Second Reading the Child Support Bill, which was designed to make changes to the original CSA legislation. Again, the Secretary of State gave assurances that there would be prompt and efficient service. He said:
the main purpose of the Bill is to improve the system of child support so that it has greater acceptability and works better, to streamline the operations and to encourage greater compliance. That means that the problems that we have seen which we all acknowledge and regret, will be less frequent in future than they were in the past and will gradually disappear as the situation improves."—[Official Report, 20 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 22.]
There has been a history of assurances and promises, but I have not witnessed any change in the number of cases that I have had to pursue in my constituency.
Many written and oral questions have been tabled to Ministers, by hon. Members on both sides of the House, expressing serious concern about the way in which the CSA is operating. One such case is that of a constituent, Ms B, who has two daughters and whose husband left her in February 1996. She informed the CSA straight away, but has received no response to her application and no answers to her letters. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security for responding to my letter of 17 March, when I sent him details of that case. In his reply, he said:
I regret that as yet, no assessment of child support has been made in this case. This is disappointing, in view of the fact that people in
Ms B's
position are exactly those we introduced the arrangements to help.
Also, a letter dated 5 March from the agency to me states:
The Agency's Belfast Centre tell me that on 28 March 1996 an application for child support maintenance was received from
Ms B
and on 19 April a maintenance enquiry form was sent to"—
her partner—
Regrettably, no further action was taken on the case until 20 February 1997".
That means that, for a full 12 months, no action was taken, and that is a recent case.
I also felt the need to write to the Minister about another constituent, Mr. B, who travels 24 miles per day to his employment. He applied for a travel allowance,

but that was denied to him because the CSA claimed that he was travelling only 14 miles to and from work. When I inquired about that, I found that it was because the agency has a broad-brush approach. Any broad-brush approach that changes an actual mileage of 24 to 14 is unfair and is not in the best interests of the people we represent.
The Minister advised me that my constituent would be contacted, but in view of the exchange of correspondence between the CSA and myself, I should have thought that it would have been courteous of the officer dealing with the case to let me have a response to the point raised with the Minister. My file is not yet complete. I have received assurances from the Minister and been told that the CSA is dealing with the matter, but have received no response from the CSA. I hope that that sort of thing will not be allowed to continue and that I shall receive some notification of the action that has been taken on that case.
On 5 March, I wrote to the Minister about the case of Mrs. A, who has been pursuing her claim for maintenance through the CSA, which keeps requiring information that she has supplied on more than one occasion. The agency keeps sending the same form, which is frustrating for the claimant and demonstrates that it is either using delaying tactics and is delaying finding out why my constituent is not receiving maintenance, or is requesting the same information over and over again, because it is totally inefficient.
Those cases are current. I am talking about correspondence of 5 March this year. On 13 February, I had cause to write to the chief executive of the CSA, Miss Chant, requesting information on a constituent who had regularly been making maintenance payments through his bank—through a banker's order—but who received a letter early in February advising him that a deduction from earnings order had been issued to his employer. The payments were being made, but because of the way in which the various offices of the CSA operate, his employer received the order, which was embarrassing for my constituent. The fact that that letter was sent to him when he was making the payments merits investigation. The ombudsman investigates only cases involving compensation, but I think that my constituent should be considered for compensation.
Another constituent, Mr. F, ceased work because of ill health and is now on a pension. Although he notified the CSA, he is still being charged the same level of maintenance as when he was working. As the maintenance amounts to more than 50 per cent. of his pension, one can understand his concern. That matter has been referred to the ombudsman.
I could describe numerous cases. These matters should be investigated. I have here a letter dated 14 March—this week—from the CSA stating that Mr. H
is concerned that despite making regular payments of child maintenance a deduction-from-earnings order has been served on his employer … On 28 November 1996, the Centre asked
Mr. H
to contact them to make an agreement to pay regular child maintenance plus an amount towards the arrears which have accrued. This he did … on 4 December".
On 3 February, Mr. H was advised that he had made no payments. On the following day, the agency wrote to tell him that it had received the payments, but that they had


not been credited to his account. That is a recent case—these are not historic matters. I ask that the issue be investigated.
Finally, The Times today contains an article about the CSA and a report of the Select Committee on Social Security. It says that there has been a problem with the backlog of cases and that
the figures in a report by the Social Security Select Committee showed that only about a third of lone parents on income support and family credit had received an assessment.
It is not creditable if only one out of three people who are looking for assistance are getting it from the CSA. The article continues:
The MPs praise the agency for a 'significant improvement' in performance since the agency started work in 1993. The committee has previously described its administrative performance in its first 18 months as 'dire'".
That is the base from which the report comes—the Committee thought that the CSA would fold and that it was in a dire situation. Although the report may have been creditable at this stage, it shows that the agency has not fulfilled Parliament's expectations on efficiency.
I draw the attention of the Minister to another report, published on 19 March—48 hours ago—by the parliamentary ombudsman. It says:
In his annual report published today the new Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman), Mr. Michael Buckley, said that the number of complaints referred by Members of Parliament in 1996 was 1,920, a rise of 12.5 per cent. from the previous year …
Almost half of the 1,920 new complaints concerned the Department of Social Security and its agencies and over half of these referred to the Child Support Agency".
A quarter of all complaints referred to the ombudsman concerned the CSA. The report continued:
Despite the measures taken by CSA to improve performance there has been no reduction in the number of complaints against the Agency referred by Members of Parliament … The issue of financial compensation arose in a large number of cases, particularly CSA cases, on which reports were issued in 1996 … The Ombudsman obtained compensation for many of those whose cases he investigated. In his report he stresses the importance of fairness and consistency and says that the principle of redress should apply not only to those whose complaints he investigates but also to the 'vastly larger number of aggrieved who take up their concerns either direct or through their Members of Parliament.'
In other words, the ombudsman is saying that when payments have been made, but an attachment of earnings order has been imposed, the persons to whom I referred should be compensated because of the problems generated and the unfairness applied by the CSA.
I therefore consider that, far from the CSA improving efficiency and bringing forward measures to support claimants, we are witnessing many people suffering because of the CSA's inefficiency. I am totally disillusioned with the CSA. It has had sufficient time to honour all the promises and assurances, but has failed to do so. If that is the CSA's record, I consider it a failure. I suggest that if the Minister—perhaps it is not for the present Under-Secretary, but for a Labour Minister—cannot improve the situation so that people get satisfaction, we should return to letting the courts decide maintenance.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has given a vivid account of the problems that arise from the Child Support

Agency. On this final day of Parliament, he has done a service to the House in securing this Adjournment debate to talk about the problem in general. Such matters arise in Question Time, but in this debate he has been able to refer to the CSA's basic inadequacies—and there are many.
It would be fair to say that in many constituencies, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, many surgeries concern this one subject. If we had been asked in 1991, when the Child Support Act was introduced, whether that would happen, we would have said that we had never heard such rubbish. We have always been used to dealing with housing and social security matters, which form a great proportion of our postbags—but then came the CSA. We were told that it would resolve the problem; it was better than having the matters dealt with in the courts; and, what is more, it would provide women in particular with money that they had not had before. The fact that stares us in the face—my hon. Friend referred to it happening in his area—is that we are being inundated with complaints.
It is true that, when Members of Parliament write to the CSA in Belfast, the case might be pushed to the top of the queue temporarily, but it is also true that a hell of a lot of cases never get anywhere near that when people do not approach their Member of Parliament. If, as my hon. Friend said, so many cases concerning the CSA are being referred to the ombudsman, it is time that we asked ourselves: is this Act working well? Initially, many people said that the problems were just teething troubles; there was a big backlog, but everything would be sorted out in two or perhaps three years. My hon. Friend is saying that, after five years, the system is not working.
I do not agree with the Social Security Committee either. I think that it has glossed over the matter. When the few Members of Parliament who serve on that Committee give the impression that somehow the matter is being resolved, I do not accept it, because I am still having to deal with the same number of cases in my constituency—probably more—as I did when the CSA was set up. We must look at the matter afresh.
I have never seen so many people lobbying Parliament on one issue over five years as I have on the CSA. A lobby on the CSA came to the House only a few weeks ago. Last year, there were several. I went outside the House of Commons one day and said to the lobbyists, "What are you lobbying for?" I always see whether anybody is lobbying and usually try to join them and help them along the way. Those people said, "We've come to lobby on the CSA." I said, "I met them last week." They said, "But we are 'Police against the CSA'." There were 250 people in a line.
The idea of the CSA might have sounded good at the beginning—and obviously did—but after five years, it is obviously not working. Over the past two or three years, some of us have called for it to be scrapped. The House has heard the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton. He approached the matter in a reasonable, moderate way, and has come to the conclusion, like me, that it is time to take a fresh look. I shall be with him when the next Labour Government get into power on 2 May, to try to find a better method. He says that we should return to the courts—that might be necessary. Somebody said that the CSA would save the Treasury


a lot of money. I would like to know how much, because it has certainly cost a hell of a lot in administration over the past five years.
The question is not one of a few odd cases in a constituency up in Yorkshire. We are saying that the problem is widespread, that it is pretty clear that Belfast is not getting on top of it and that it is time to take a completely fresh look. We should not leave the Social Security Committee to make a few humdrum remarks. If after five years the Act is not working, it is time that we had a fresh one to replace it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): I congratulate the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on securing the last Adjournment debate of the Parliament. It is a particular pleasure for me to make the final speech of the Parliament because on 6 May 1992 I had the somewhat dubious privilege of making the second speech of the new Parliament when I seconded the Loyal Address to Her Majesty. I recognise the concerns that were expressed by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), who has taken a great interest in improving the Child Support Agency on behalf of his constituents over the two years that I have been the Minister with responsibility for it, and has brought a number of cases to me which we have together been able to resolve.
I should like to deal with the three individual cases about which the hon. Member for Normanton expressed concern and on which he was kind enough to advise me before the debate. He also mentioned another case about which I do not have details, but if he would let me have further details, I shall undertake to give him additional information on it. My officials will get back to him tomorrow on any outstanding questions.
The hon. Member for Normanton has written to me about one of his constituents, Mr. H, who was concerned that the broad-brush allowance in the formula for travel-to-work costs would not meet his needs. We recognise that, although the formula is correct in the vast majority of cases, there will be a small number of cases where limited discretion should be allowed. For those reasons, we introduced the departure scheme, which can cover travel-to-work costs in certain limited circumstances. Mr. H has since made an application for a departure. His application is being dealt with. It is currently at contest stage, and the papers have gone to the parent with care. She has until 27 March to respond.
In the second case—that of Miss B, who is a parent with care—there has been an inexcusable delay of seven months in assessing her maintenance. That was in part due to the large volume of applications at the CSA centre. We have, as hon. Members will know, addressed problems of high workloads by simplifying the rules governing the scheme, and I intend those changes to ensure that the poor standard of service suffered by Miss B is a thing of the past. When the agency has obtained details of the absent parent's current circumstances, all action required to complete a maintenance settlement will proceed. I have specifically asked the agency to ensure that that, and all other action on Miss B's case, is treated as a priority.
The third case that the hon. Member for Normanton raised was the case of Ms A, a parent with care and involving two absent parents. The problems in that case centre around the large amount of information that is required to ensure a fair outcome. One of the absent parents has not been co-operative. That has caused difficulties in enforcing maintenance which were compounded by mistakes made by the agency. The agency has now imposed an interim maintenance assessment on the unco-operative absent parent and enforcement action is being taken, but maintenance has yet to be paid. For the other child in the case, the next step in the application is for the relevant notification to be issued to the Inland Revenue to obtain the absent parent's employment details, if applicable. Following that, the case will be fully investigated with regard to the possible imposition of an interim maintenance assessment or completion of a full maintenance assessment.
I wish to apologise for the delays in the agency's handling of the cases. They are now being treated as urgent. Obviously, the agency's primary concern is for the children in each case. In the cases mentioned, the agency is working towards fair maintenance assessments and will continue to do so.
I shall move on from specific cases to the general comments that were made by the hon. Members for Normanton and for Bolsover. Many of their fears are now being addressed and resolved. It is a truism to say that the agency had a difficult start. The Social Security Select Committee described its introduction as the biggest social change for 40 years.The sheer scale of the change was not adequately appreciated on either side of the House.
At the end of the first year, work was outstanding on 550,000 cases. Only £15 million had been collected or arranged for direct payment in the first year. However, in 1994, the agency's second year, maintenance collected and arranged exceeded £187 million—a more than twelvefold increase. In 1995, that figure almost doubled to £301 million, and in the present year the figure has increased again and looks likely to be almost £400 million. The agency now collects and arranges as much each fortnight as it did in the whole of its first year of operations. Four child support agency centres each collected £4 million in January alone. Within three years, I estimate that the agency will be collecting £800 million a year, three quarters of which will go to the parents with care.
The House may wish to reflect on the scale of the improvement in the lives of children which will result from the huge increase in the flow of child maintenance, to which they are rightly and fully entitled. The improvements reflect a steadily increasing number of active cases with a maintenance assessment—up to 345,000 in March 1995, and to 460,000 in March 1996. By November 1996, the agency had more than 545,000 live cases.
As hon. Members will know, the agency has had to deal with a continual backlog. That backlog must be cleared by April 1999, when the new computer system will start operating. I have therefore given instructions that the situation should be closely monitored month by month, over the next 24 months, to ensure that the eradication of the backlog is accomplished. I and the senior management of the CSA have good reason to be confident that the full eradication of the backlog will be achieved in the next 24 months.
There has been a similar improvement in the accuracy of assessments. By March 1996, 79 per cent. of assessments checked were correct to the last penny. This year, the agency expects to meet its target of 85 per cent. of assessments being correct. That level of accuracy compares well with benefit assessments—for example, for income support—which are generally less complex. The agency has been effective in combating fraud and containing social security expenditure. It has consistently saved the taxpayer nearly three times as much as it costs, which answers a specific question by the hon. Member for Bolsover. Between April 1993—when the agency was launched—and March 1996, the agency achieved nearly £1.4 billion in benefit savings. Net operating costs for the period were around £500 million. In the current year, through 31 December 1996, savings of more than £354 million have been recorded, against net operating costs of £146 million.

Mr. William O'Brien: I appreciate the information that the Minister has given. The ombudsman has awarded compensation in more than 80 cases. Will that compensation come out of the savings, or is there another fund from which compensation is paid?

Mr. Mitchell: I will come to the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about the ombudsman. I overhauled the system of compensation at the end of last year, and we now have a clearly established new system that relates specifically to the CSA and the cases that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech.
As well as collecting maintenance that offsets benefit expenditure, the agency discourages abuse of the benefits system. In 1994–95, more than 60,000 parents with care withdrew their benefit claims once the agency began taking action. Overall since the agency started its operation, it is estimated that more than £644 million has been saved by that means alone.
Other tangible improvements in the performance of the CSA continue. The agency's increased emphasis on maintenance collection entails a strong and increasingly effective commitment to enforcement action when maintenance is not paid. As for payments of maintenance to parents with care, the improvements are clear. Some 98 per cent. of payments were passed on within 10 working days. In cases with difficulties in ensuring regular payments, deductions from earnings orders are now implemented quickly in all appropriate cases. More than 47,000 were issued between April 1996 and the end of January 1997.
I wish to record my appreciation, and that of all the Ministers in the Department of Social Security, to the Social Security Select Committee for the advice that it has offered on improvements to child support. The Committee has paid close attention to the policy and the operation of the scheme since its introduction, and has produced five helpful reports on the subject since April 1993. I am grateful to the Committee for its constant support for a properly functioning child support system and its determination to identify impediments to the effective operation of the agency. Both the hon. Gentlemen who contributed were somewhat grudging in their support for the Social Security Select Committee.

Mr. Skinner: It was worse than that.

Mr. Mitchell: I was being generous. The Select Committee is an all-party Committee, and we value what it says. I fully agree with the Committee's report, which was published yesterday and which states:
the Committee was very encouraged that after a poor start, the Child Support Agency was showing a much more acceptable level of service … The figures … indicate that in the past two years there has been a substantial improvement in the Agency's performance. Whereas the Agency was heading for disaster in 1993/94, there is now no danger that this could occur. We are pleased that the Child Support Agency is on a sure footing and expect that the gains in performance will continue.
That was the judgment of the all-party Social Security Select Committee which underlines the bipartisan approach to child support that now exists between the Government and the official Opposition. I agree with the Select Committee's comments, and I pay tribute to its consistency.
Many Members of the House, from both sides, have shown great patience and support during the agency's most difficult periods, when inaccuracies and mistakes tried the patience of many hon. Members and their constituents. While inaccuracies have yet to be eliminated, the improvement is there for all to see, as is our commitment further to improve the service for the agency's clients until it is fully acceptable. The emphasis on the continuing need for further improvement in service is clear from the agency's targets for the next financial year, which we announced on Tuesday.
The agency will be required to collect and arrange £500 million in maintenance, to achieve an accuracy level of 85 per cent. over the whole year and to clear at least 525,000 maintenance assessments while bearing down on work outstanding.
For all those changes and improvements, the House owes a particular debt of gratitude to Ann Chant, the chief executive, who will depart shortly to work on Business in the Community. She has done a superb job in turning around the fortunes of the Child Support Agency. I am particularly grateful to her for agreeing to stay on as chief executive for longer than she intended originally. She is an outstanding civil servant, and deserves all the praise that has rightly been heaped upon her by the Social Security Select Committee, Ministers and many others who have worked with her during her time as chief executive.
I turn now to several policy considerations. I appreciate the concern that has been expressed about the complexity of the system: a great deal of information is required in order to assess child maintenance. I acknowledge the fact that simplification of the system has been a key factor in improving the process and getting maintenance flowing. Progress has been made in resolving the difficulties experienced in establishing housing costs and wages. If the agency can continue to simplify and streamline its procedures, and can get it right, the way forward will be easier. Policy changes have also played their part. To this end, we have always made it clear that we shall listen to—and, where possible, act upon—any constructive suggestions for change that come from both sides of the House.
While I have had the honour of being responsible for the agency, I have made some 140 changes to the way in which it operates. The Child Support Act 1995 and the


regulations introduced in April 1995 added to the process of positive change. Those changes were based, in part, on suggestions by the Social Security Select Committee. However, they went further in some respects. The Act was supported by both sides of the House with good reason: it was a careful and prudent balancing act. The Government took into account the interests of the children, their parents and the taxpayer. The interests of the children were central to the proposals for change that were accepted by the House.
The Government's intention was simple: remain true to the key principles behind child support, but learn the lessons of experience. As a result, four main changes were introduced in 1995 which built upon earlier improvements. First, we introduced the 30 per cent. rule. That meant that no absent parent would be assessed under the formula to pay more than 30 per cent. of his or her net income in current maintenance payments. Even absent parents whose payments are in arrears would usually pay no more than 33 per cent. Secondly, we introduced a degree of flexibility into the formula, and I shall return to that point later.
Thirdly, the Government recognised that capital or property settlements made before child support was introduced might have been intended to offset regular child maintenance payments. That was not always properly reflected in the child support assessment. We introduced regulations to make allowance for a broad recognition of those property and capital settlements, and made provisions in the Act for more detailed allowances. On the same basis—I refer directly to the first case that the hon. Member for Normanton raised—we also recognised high travel-to-work costs of the minority of parents who travel long distances to work.
It had become clear that the agency experienced particular problems in collecting maintenance from self-employed absent parents. That is not a new problem: the courts experienced similar difficulties. Some absent parents have sought to exploit that difficulty in a bid to sidestep their legitimate responsibilities towards their children. I am pleased to say that we were able to make important changes that were designed specifically to address problems in that area. We introduced a new power that allows the agency to enter liability orders in the county court register of debt judgments. The threat of such an entry will be an incentive to secure absent parents' compliance—especially in the case of the self-employed, who generally rely on credit to conduct their business. I am pleased to tell the House that those powers are being used in appropriate cases. On Monday, I visited the Hastings Child Support Agency centre, and staff told me that results for the latest quarter show that a substantial proportion of those who are warned that they may face action subsequently comply.
As I said earlier, a crucial part of the 1995 improvements package was the introduction of a degree of flexibility into the maintenance assessment formula. The Government remain committed to using a formula to determine maintenance. A formula is successful and fair in the majority of cases, and it provides the best means of establishing a fair and consistent maintenance liability. However, experience has shown that a small proportion of cases were not being dealt with fairly by a formula. That is why I have introduced some discretion to "depart"

from the basic formula in special circumstances. The change will allow flexibility where fairness demands it. It was successfully piloted in the summer of 1996, and introduced nationally in December. Through the introduction of the departures system, we have addressed one of the biggest criticisms of the child support system. In doing so, we have gone rather further than the changes suggested by the Social Security Select Committee in its report.
Parents with care and absent parents can apply for a departure from the formula assessment. For example, an absent parent may face genuine hardship if a maintenance assessment fails adequately to reflect special expenses. Such costs include those incurred in maintaining contact with children or in meeting the needs of step-children in a current family. The discretion to "depart" from the formula will help a small but important number of cases in which people might otherwise face hardship. Conversely, a parent with care may have grounds to consider the maintenance assessment to be unrealistically low. It may be that an absent parent appears to be living a life style that is simply not commensurate with his declared income. In that case, the parent with care can apply for a departure order.
More recently, we have tackled the problem of parents with care who claim benefits but who are unwilling to permit action to recover maintenance from the absent parent. In the light of clear evidence that such reluctance can mean that benefit is being claimed fraudulently, we have increased the level and duration of the benefit penalty that applies when the parent with care has no genuine reason for her failure to co-operate. As well as being an effective way of tackling fraud, this underpins the principle that both parents must honour responsibilities for their children whenever they can afford to do so.
Those improvements are reflected in a substantial fall in the amount of correspondence that I receive from hon. Members: down by one third in 1996 compared with 1995. While there has been a modest fall in correspondence about individual cases, complaints about the policy have fallen dramatically by more than 50 per cent: from 1,520 in 1995 to only 723 in 1996. Those absent parent groups who campaigned so loudly against the child support scheme can no longer claim legitimate grievance. It is time for the small minority of outside groups who oppose the agency to acknowledge that times have changed. I hope that all hon. Members will acknowledge and reinforce the message that absent parents have a responsibility to support their children when they can afford to do so.
I am afraid that a small number of men continue to believe that they should not be responsible for supporting their children and can shuffle off their liability on to their neighbour: the taxpayer. Such people cloak in moral indignation what is a simple disinclination to pay up for their kids. Increasingly, society rightly regards such behaviour with deep distaste and contempt. I am sure that the process will continue to grow. Children have a right to be supported by their own parents whenever and wherever that can occur. While the House cannot legislate for the affection and concern that all parents owe their children, it can legislate—and has done so—for proper and fair levels of child support.
I thank the hon. Gentleman once again for the opportunity to review the operation of the Child Support Agency and the changes that we have made to improve the operation of the child support scheme. The current system has experienced problems, not all of which will disappear overnight. Recent changes address both the functioning and the fairness of the system. Not all the improvements that I have sought are in place yet, and it will take time for the effect of the changes to feed through.
Nevertheless, we are continuing to look for ways of making the system function more effectively. The hon. Member for Normanton referred to the ombudsman. Next month, the agency's independent case examiner will begin her work of handling the concerns of clients whose cases have not been handled as well as they expected. The child maintenance bonus scheme—an important back-to-work measure which provides cash help for parents with care returning to work—will begin operation.

Sir Patrick Cormack: May anyone approach that officer, or can she be approached only via a Member of Parliament?

Mr. Mitchell: I reassure my hon. Friend that she may be approached by anyone. The Government are committed to seeing parents with care receiving levels of maintenance that adequately reflect both the children's needs and the absent parents' ability to pay. We are at last seeing more maintenance being paid to more parents with care than ever before. I am sure that many hon. Members will agree that that represents a considerable achievement for an agency that many were willing to write off less than two years ago.
I look forward to returning to this Dispatch Box after the Queen's Speech on 14 May, and after the Conservative party has won the general election. I look forward to continuing the important work in the area of child support when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister forms his next Government on 2 May.
As the last Minister to speak during this Parliament from the Treasury Bench and from the Dispatch Box, I will follow in the tradition established by the final speaker in the last Parliament in 1992—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—in quoting Suetonius, who accurately reflects the outstanding economic achievements secured by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He wrote:

Urbem excoluit adeo, ut iure sit gloriatus marmoream se relinquere, quam latericiam accepisset.
For those Opposition Members who may find it helpful, this translates as:
He so improved the city that he justly asserted he had found it brick and left it marble.

Sitting suspended.

8 pm

On resuming—

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier today I drew Madam Speaker's attention to the fact that there had been an announcement on the widening of the M25. She addressed that point of order. My point of order this evening—I apologise for troubling you—relates to the fact that the Cabinet Secretary has published some Cabinet rules on the conduct of Ministers after the general election has been announced.
I was bewildered as to how a decision could be announced in a parliamentary answer by the Minister for Railways and Roads, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). I spoke to the permanent secretary at the Department of Transport, who said, "Ah. The decision was taken on 13 March."
I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about this total abuse and flagrant disregard of the rules laid down by the Cabinet Secretary, who is the custodian of the independence of the civil service. The fact that that can be done is nonsense and an outrage. Can you help? The decision was taken today, not on 13 March. Somebody should be brought to account before the House for that abuse.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Thankfully, I am not responsible for anything that the Cabinet Secretary does.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eight o' clock.